Re: [PATCH v4] docs: clarify rules wrt tagging other people

[Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>]

On 10.02.25 12:15, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 07.02.25 10:05, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:30:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> +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.
> [...]
>> 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.

TBH: a bit, yes, but I think I'd prefer that a tiny bit over making that
section yet again a few lines longer. But I don't care much. Maybe
someone else (Jonathan?) can weight in on this?

>> ""
>> 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"

Yes, albeit I'd go with "public reply" (shorter, and does not exclude a
reply in a public bug tracker comment).

>> 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.

Thx!

Ciao, Thorsten