Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: document the format for affiliation

[Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@linux.dev>]

在 2/5/25 22:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 05/02/2025 08:37, Yanteng Si wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2025/2/4 01:46, Jakub Kicinski 写道:
>>> Adding company name in round brackets to From/SoB lines
>>> is fairly common, but I don't see it documented anywhere.
>>> Every now and then people try to add the sponsorship lines
>>> to the commit message, fun example from this merge window:
>>>
>>>     Sponsored by:   The FreeBSD Foundation
>>>
>>> from commit 2ce67f8bf1ce ("wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: fix iwl_ssid_exist()
>>> check"). Better format would be:
>>>
>>>     Author: Miri Korenblit (FreeBSD Foundation) <...
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>> CC: corbet@lwn.net
>>> CC: workflows@vger.kernel.org
>>> CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>    Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 6 ++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>>> index 8fdc0ef3e604..12ed28b3d113 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>>> @@ -717,6 +717,12 @@ patch in the permanent changelog.  If the ``from`` line is missing,
>>>    then the ``From:`` line from the email header will be used to determine
>>>    the patch author in the changelog.
>>>    
>>> +The author may indicate their affiliation or the sponsor of the work
>>> +by adding the name of an organization to the ``from`` and ``SoB`` lines,
>>> +e.g.:
>>> +
>>> +	From: Patch Author (Company) <author@example.com>
>>> +
>> It looks great, but I'm a bit worried that it could be misused,
>> which might cause trouble for some companies. Even without
>> this patch, there's no way to prevent the misuse.
>> Consider the following situation:
>>
>> From: Yanteng Si (linux foundation) <si.yanteng@linux.dev>
>>
>> Obviously, I'm not a member of the Linux Foundation.
>
> Nothing stops you from doing this now, because mentioned format is
> already accepted.
>
>> This might seem a bit absurd, but I think it could actually happen,
>> especially with some driver code. Hardware manufacturers would
>> prefer to upstream their code under the guidance of their companies,
>> considering subsequent hardware iterations. However, if some
>> enthusiasts pretend to be company employees, and the maintainer,
>> trusting the tag, actively applies the patches, it could disrupt the
>> rhythm of the hardware manufacturers and is not conducive to code
>> maintenance in the long run.
>
> We trust people, not companies, so I think it does not matter for the
> trust what is written in ().
>
>
>> How about we add one more part: The organization name in
>> the parentheses doesn't necessarily represent the developer's
>> relationship with that organization, especially when it doesn't
>> match the email domain name. Maintainers should be cautious
>> and verify carefully before applying patches.
> Sorry, but how? First, maintainers have already a lot on their plate and
> you want to ask them to do some more checks? And how would these checks
> look like? Shall I ask people to give me certificates of employement or
> their contracts?

That's not necessary. Just ignore the content inside the parentheses

during the review. This will instead reduce the workload of the maintainers.


Thanks,

Yanteng