Message-ID: <ZFPN340/UstRWtmR@aschofie-mobl2>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 08:23:11 -0700
From:   Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     raghuhack78@...il.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, bwidawsk@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        vishal.l.verma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxl/mbox: Remove redundant dev_err() after failed
 mem alloc

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 12:46:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> On giovedì 4 maggio 2023 00:03:07 CEST Alison Schofield wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:32:37PM +0200, Fabio wrote:
> > > On venerdì 28 aprile 2023 03:22:34 CEST Raghu H wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Raghu H <raghuhack78@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Is "Raghu H" the name you sign legal documents with?
> > 
> > Fabio,
> > Rather than asking a specific question to determine if this is a
> > valid SOB, let's just point folks to the documentation to figure
> > it out themselves.
> > I'm aware that the 'sign legal documents' test
> > has been used in the past, but kernel only actually requires a
> > known identity.
> > 
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-you
> > r-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
> > https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md
> 
> Alison,
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions.
> 
> I have just a couple of questions about this issue...
> 
> 1) How do we know that the "real name", which the Linux official documentation 
> refers to, should be interpreted in accordance to the document pointed by the 
> second link you provided? 
> 
> I mean, how can we be sure that the official documentation should be 
> interpreted according to the second link, since it doesn't even cite that 
> document from CNCF? 
> 
> Can you provide links to documents / LKML's threads that state agreement of 
> our Community about the "relaxed" interpretation by CNCF?

Citation is hidden it git history. See:
d4563201f33a ("Documentation: simplify and clarify DCO contribution example language")

> 
> 2) It looks that some maintainers (e.g., Greg K-H) still interpret "[] using 
> your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)" in a 
> "strict" and "common" sense. 

See the commit log above. The language was updated to say
"using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)"

> 
> Can you remember that Greg refused all patches from "Kloudifold" and why? If 
> not, please take a look at the following two questions / objections from Greg: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZCQkPr6t8IOvF6bk@kroah.com/ and 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/ZBCjK2BXhfiFooeO@kroah.com/.

The second link above is Greg recognizing that known pseudonyms are
allowed. 

> 
> It seems that this issue it's not yet settled. 
> Am I overlooking something?

Hey, I'm not meaning to jump on you for asking Raghu the question.
I realize you are being helpful to someone who is submitting their first
patch. I'm just saying to make the submitter aware of the guideline and
put the burden on them to make sure they're using a known identity.

Sometimes, what one person thinks of as 'common' is not. Let's refer to
the docs and not add out personal or historical layers of interpretation
on top of it. (The legal doc signing question may not apply to everyone.)

Alison

> 
> Again thanks,
> 
> Fabio
> 
> > > If not, please send a new version signed-off-by your full legal name.
> > > Otherwise... sorry for the noise.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Fabio
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists