From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E02C1C5D7C; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739186114; cv=none; b=eLbEmW7cBhDmtIs1Q7/iOSSRDMLDZPiM27be47z75VNo3/llFQOas6v9to1MEFeDh6bxyD0/j/YLAnE3LKR0Mj1QlJrh5Ty6GLs+hzul58nDdw56uiyMtUiEKuPISapI99N9TNtZd1XOzbSDVeckJlqQUuN4Hhqj11PF2b1DQ14= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739186114; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5CBqDfYk0oFqMBufkZckF4ZUcwXX+m/vSHvF0rrzvWQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZOHaUGhlZEsOfY5oa3U4r+8RDks9e7LrzFkrnICLGNVIf5+eePev4DlgqPEpZp5uoGzm5+M6+uB6xD3rTlJZfnYJiU90+VyDxvnSAC9+P74uVxYLU12yL/MEMAa90f8o7+egC8iLi549tdKd/73/u1c6WQRVsSJKd+Ji/99XIL0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=cw61DjqK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="cw61DjqK" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14815352; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:13:54 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1739186034; bh=5CBqDfYk0oFqMBufkZckF4ZUcwXX+m/vSHvF0rrzvWQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cw61DjqKaw7PXxQCCiwrbqPgnn0D4nalMo8V9cnkjFNi432mQszqyzPYk7e3j9lxB XUGZnn6e5C/vQO5o8wC3GAYdgCntxcHhq+e3Rlzjy0xred0b+g+R/PB0U0tbUU/8Ty 4zgRXFAk/VrrIni2ntTpQyHuQJBP9raAD2P6hOOk= Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:15:01 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Jonathan Corbet , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Simona Vetter , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people Message-ID: <20250210111501.GF2966@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <588cf2763baa8fea1f4825f4eaa7023fe88bb6c1.1738852082.git.linux@leemhuis.info> <20250207090518.GE24886@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 07.02.25 10:05, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Thank you for the patch. > > Thx for saying that! > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:30:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> Point out that explicit permission is usually needed to tag other people > >> in changes, but mention that implicit permission can be sufficient in > >> certain cases. This fixes slight inconsistencies between Reported-by: > >> and Suggested-by: and makes the usage more intuitive. > >> > >> While at it, explicitly mention the dangers of our bugzilla instance, as > >> it makes it easy to forget that email addresses visible there are only > >> shown to logged-in users. > >> > >> The latter is not a theoretical issue, as one maintainer mentioned that > >> his employer received a EU GDPR (general data protection regulation) > >> complaint after exposing a email address used in bugzilla through a tag > >> in a patch description. > > [...] > >> -Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate > >> -for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using > >> -Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if > >> -the bug was reported in private. > >> +Be careful in the addition of the aforementioned tags to your patches, as all > >> +except for Cc:, Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: need explicit permission of the > >> +person named. For those three 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. > > > > I like this text very much, it's concise and clear. > > Glad to hear! > > > My only possible > > concern is that "explicit permission" isn't defined. I assume that > > someone sendubg a Reviewed-by or Acked-by tag in a public mail thread > > counts as permission, but strictly speaking it's not explicit. > > > > Regardless of that, I think we can clarify what explicit permission > > means in a follow-up patch. If you would like to merge this one as-is, > > Hmmmm. Not totally sure that I exactly understand what you mean, but I > think I see it. What I meant is that I interpret "explicit" as requiring an explicit mention of permission (e.g. "You can add my tag to the commit"), while replying to a patch with a tag on a public list seems to me to convey an implicit permission instead. > But I'm not sure how to solve that. Would simply > dropping the "explicit" solve this? Or should I start the section like this: Dropping "explicit" seems to be the simplest solution, but the next sentence mentions "implicit permission" which would then sound weird. > "" > Be careful in the addition of the aforementioned tags to your patches, > almost all need permission by the person named; one can be assumed if > the person provided that tag in a reply or acknowledged its inclusion "in a reply to a public list" > after being made aware that name and email address will end up in public > places where they can't be removed. > > The tags Cc:, Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: are an exception: for > those three implicit permission is sufficient, ... > """ This sounds good to me. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart