Hi Maxime, On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 05:06:52PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 01:18:44PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > On 2021-05-16, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 09:51:17AM +0100, Jernej Škrabec wrote: > > >> Let me first explain that it was oversight on my side not noticing initials in > > >> your SoB tag. But since the issue was raised by Maxime, I didn't follow up. > > >> > > >> Dne sobota, 13. februar 2021 ob 07:51:32 CET je B.R. Oake napisal(a): > > >> > On Wed Feb 10 at 16:01:18 CET 2021, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > >> > > Unfortunately we can't take this patch as is, this needs to be your real > > >> > > name, see: > > >> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#de > > >> > > veloper-s-certificate-of-origin-1-1 > > >> > Dear Maxime, > > >> > > > >> > Thank you very much for considering my contribution and for all your > > >> > work on supporting sunxi-based hardware; I appreciate it. > > >> > > > >> > Thank you for referring me to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, but > > >> > I had already read it before submitting (I had to do so in order to know > > >> > what I was saying by "Signed-off-by:") and I do certify what it says. > > >> > > > >> > Looking through recent entries in the commit log of the mainline kernel, > > >> > I see several patches from authors such as: > > >> > > > >> > H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > B K Karthik <karthik.bk2000@xxxxxxxx> > > >> > JC Kuo <jckuo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > EJ Hsu <ejh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > LH Lin <lh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > Karthik B S <karthik.b.s@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > Shreyas NC <shreyas.nc@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > Vandana BN <bnvandana@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > >> > so I believe names of this form are in fact acceptable, even if the > > >> > style might seem a little old-fashioned to some. > > >> > > >> Speaking generally, not only for this case, prior art arguments rarely hold, > > >> because: > > >> - it might be oversight, > > >> - it might be a bad practice, which should not be followed in new > > >> contributions, > > >> - different maintainers have different point of view on same thing, > > >> - maintainer wants to adapt new practice or steer subsystem in new direction > > >> > > >> > > > >> > I would like to add that I have met many people with names such as C.J., > > >> > A A, TC, MG, etc. That is what everybody calls them and it would be > > >> > natural for them to sign themselves that way. Some of them might want to > > >> > contribute to Linux some day, and I think it would be a great shame and > > >> > a loss to all of us if they were discouraged from doing so by reading > > >> > our conversation in the archives and concluding that any contribution > > >> > from them, however small, would be summarily refused simply because of > > >> > their name. Please could you ensure that does not happen? > > >> > > >> The link you posted says following: > > >> "using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)" > > >> > > >> I believe that real name means no initials, no matter what people are > > >> accustomed to. From my point of view, CJ is pseudonym derived from real name. > > >> > > >> This is not the first time that fix of SoB tag was requested, you can find such > > >> requests in ML archives. > > > > I'm sure this isn't the first time this sort of thing has been brought > > up on this subject, but I feel obliged to mention: > > > > https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ > > > > This seems to be blocked on culturally dependent perception of what > > looks like a "real name" as opposed to any technical grounds. > > > > What is the goal of the "real name" in Signed-off-by actually trying to > > achieve? > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#developer-s-certificate-of-origin-1-1 > > I'm not the one making the rules, sorry Would it be technically possible to do the following: Based on the downstream report we receved in Debian in https://bugs.debian.org/988574 wrap up the same patch (I guess I will need to use another commit message wording) and resubmit with my own SoB with my downstream hat on and say a Tested-by from Vagrant? So we are not blocked on the SoB issue from this original post of the change to apply to arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3-orangepi-plus.dts ? Regards, Salvatore
