Re: [PATCH v3 DONOTMERGE] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:54:49 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> escreveu:

> On 02.12.24 15:45, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:54:56 +0100
> > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> escreveu:
> >   
> >> On 02.12.24 11:02, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:  
> >>> Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:28:57 +0100
> >>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> escreveu:
> >>>     
> >>>>> +Tagging people requires permission
> >>>>> +----------------------------------
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as all except for Cc:,
> >>>>> +Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: need explicit permission of the person named.
> >>>>> +For the three aforementioned ones implicit permission is sufficient if the
> >>>>> +person contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address
> >>>>> +according to the lore archives or the commit history -- and in case of
> >>>>> +Reported-by: and Suggested-by: did the reporting or suggestion in public.
> >>>>> +Note, bugzilla.kernel.org is a public place in this sense, but email addresses
> >>>>> +used there are private; so do not expose them in tags, unless the person used
> >>>>> +them in earlier contributions.    
> >>>
> >>> Hmm... There is another tag that we use without requiring explicit permissions:
> >>>
> >>> 	Requested-by:
> >>>
> >>> There are currently 376 occurrences on 6.13-rc1.
> >>>
> >>> This is used when a maintainer or reviewer publicly requests some changes to
> >>> be added on a patch series.    
> > [...]
> > You're basically requesting explicit permission for any "non-official"
> > tags as well, including reviewed-by. This is not what it is wanted here.  
> 
> Ahh, okay, I see the problem now. But well, I'd say "as all except" in a
> text like this implicitly only refers to those the text mentions in the
> first place. So I'd say it's good as it is. But if people think this is
> a problem,

I still think it is problematic, but with the change below:

> I could easily use a slightly modified phrase like "...as all
> mentioned above except...".

It seems a lot better to me.

Regards,
Mauro