Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKXUXMx8siSm67jkBP_r+OKyKALfT2EDcX_SfX7JGBy3YisXcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201123172430.12854-1-yashsri421@gmail.com> <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <148208ef84344069a6c95d3f686a86ca1199be90.camel@perches.com>
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:54:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMzcMWeM2M81b2PZ+D54LO6xd+m667vygWVF93Mnsq8QQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] checkpatch: add fix and improve warning msg for
 Non-standard signature
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:33 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 22:54 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
> > Currently, checkpatch.pl warns for BAD_SIGN_OFF on non-standard signature
> > styles.
>
> I think this proposed change is unnecessary.
>
> > This warning occurs because of incorrect use of signature tags,
> > e.g. an evaluation on v4.13..v5.8 showed the use of following incorrect
> > signature tags, which may seem correct, but are not standard:
>
> Standards are useful, but standards are not constraints.
>

Agree, but we do try to create statistics and try to derive quality
statements from those tags (yes, empirical software engineering black
magic...).
Hence, I am in favor of suggesting to rewrite those tags that really
do not add anything at all. E.g., Suggestions-by: vs. Suggested-by, or
Coauthored-by vs. Co-developed-by.

Anyone can ignore checkpatch; so it is not a constraint unless
enforced by subsystem maintainers.

> > 1) Requested-by (count: 48) => Suggested-by
> > Rationale: In an open-source project, there are no 'requests', just
> > 'suggestions' to convince a maintainer to accept your patch
>
> There's nothing really wrong with some non-standard signatures.
> And I think leaving humor like brown-paper-bag-by: is useful.
>

I think we do not want to take the humor and fun away from patches.

So let us not suggest deleting the humorous and celebrating ones.

> Just telling people that they are using a non-standard signature
> I think is enough.
>

Maybe a patch reduced to the very obvious synonyms helps newcomers or
people with lousy memory to be reminded that it is called
"Co-developed-by:" not "Co-authored-by".

Lukas