From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 A233E2022F5; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 14:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730903341; cv=none; b=AZfnYjWRm8AcpXtSUJqLVlfuogWHaECQSOe/G8RYcN0uiu6EzUseB8symjLCwy9flHVa03YTN5PWyb3xrv4S5JhRJjGOefF5Zx2ALo46G7Y+Ne9LemCXFAKhVJCfp0FCCgahrESUUumyXI/LDU5smQuDZZA76kZP+rdYzH943l4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730903341; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TUBw2uIBrv3P6Vu94x6Bt/3l45ZfpEg6eDWmfn9rJmo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iIKbY2qkUCRr2o3mPa3FwRFniCouUZGX33yh1Vix01NWc5Vgz0h3FvdN9px9TB2AUVINHYnm+zGEnADYHhagseB+zJ0sBswsWV1CiYrwnMxBJY6wVJtmMaKHuF8sdEqCgkS7nYYHWmisBQAXA8C3k9l3rFh4NnkF+jsDNF1nb+o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=nqJWy2wM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="nqJWy2wM" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 4A01A42C18 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1730903333; bh=zlLF8omotvZApa3hMNvREdMOe0PP8IHuj07kcO93LH8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=nqJWy2wMQC+qyxsFeZd2htuNSXGlVPULYqAA/CcvISYCFX0T2rWntfYHfE70jEhen P8blfMtfeyKT8jSp2nHOy44EJOFU7MO+V4kMdMutmUXqrp1+VSKu58gQMWPqtzUJ5k q8mnDiWouD1ZyNrrZeTw8Ye3GYze3sB6jWAw0j4MsesXS2X4zidgyvqZ3+iXbJoyAC hFfVpLi9xBqyEmwlY7FEn7nLR/SZ9LjTomWz091R1zWGsql4zq9WrO2D0H6gIHDI1l 5IO9d+5zNrJJ1aCwjUK2mnqnq2fkYPgGX+g58dKfTQvAcqPnUUXYw3/VneiJZ6uCGe SxvKSJooXfzgQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A01A42C18; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 14:28:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Dragan Simic , apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com Cc: dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, wens@csie.org, dsimic@manjaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Make Helped-by tag supported In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 07:28:52 -0700 Message-ID: <87h68k4esb.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Dragan Simic writes: > This is a short series that adds Helped-by tag to the list of accepted > tags in scripts/checkpatch.pl, and describes the intended use of this new > tag in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. > > The proposed Helped-by tag fits well to indicate someone had helped with > the development of a patch, to the level that doesn't warrant providing > a Co-developed-by tag, but is much more than it would've been indicated > by providing a Suggested-by tag. The documentation is meant to cover our existing conventions, rather than to drive new ones - usually, at least. There are exactly 11 commits in the history with Helped-by, suggesting we're not really at an established convention at this point. Given that there has been some resistance to inventing new tags, are we sure that we want this one? Thanks, jon