Message-ID: <6f1d8954-586b-efea-526b-ef461b5624df@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 00:30:26 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation
To:     Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sergio.collado@gmail.com
References: <20230306134420.30210-1-carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
 <38cb9f23-a56a-f420-5942-0bfeb620306e@gmail.com>
 <875b2564-589b-c381-cbf0-f30470d4a5a8@amd.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <875b2564-589b-c381-cbf0-f30470d4a5a8@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/03/07 0:20, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
> Hello Akira,
>=20
> On 3/6/23 09:13, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> Minor nits in the Subject and Sob area.
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:44:20 -0600, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
>>> Subject: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation
>>
>> This summary looks ambiguous to me.
>>
>> Maybe
>>
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 docs/sp_SP: Add translation of process/deprecated
>=20
> This summary follows the same format followed in the past. Some example=
s:
>=20
> docs/sp_SP: Add process coding-style translation
> docs/sp_SP: Add process magic-number translation
> docs/sp_SP: Add process programming-language translation
> docs/sp_SP: Add process email-clients translation

Let me explain why "Add process deprecated translation" looks
ambiguous.

"deprecated translation" can be interpreted as "some translation
which is deprecated".
Of course you don't need to agree.

>=20
>>
>> ??
>>
>>> Translate Documentation/process/deprecated.rst into Spanish.
>>>
>>> Co-developed-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez <sergio.collado@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
>>
>> To me, Co-developed-by: from the author of the patch looks
>> strange, because it is obvious the author did some development on
>> the patch.
>>
>=20
> No, we both worked on this patch so Co-developed-by: is the appropriate=

> tagging. That being said, Sergio translated more than I did, so I put
> him as sole Translator in the document itself.

Hmm, anyway I don't think you are following the rule of Co-developed-by:
explained in submitting-patches.rst.

Again, you don't need to agree... ;-)

        Thanks, Akira

>=20
>> Which is your intent:
>>
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Author: Carlos
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Co-developer: Sergio
>>
>> , or
>>
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Author: Sergio
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Co-developer: Carlos
>>
>> ???
>>
>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Thanks, Akira
>>
>>> ---
>>> =C2=A0 .../translations/sp_SP/process/deprecated.rst | 381 ++++++++++=
++++++++
>>> =C2=A0 .../translations/sp_SP/process/index.rst=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0 1 +
>>> =C2=A0 2 files changed, 382 insertions(+)
>>> =C2=A0 create mode 100644 Documentation/translations/sp_SP/process/de=
precated.rst
>> [...]
>=20
> Thanks,
> Carlos