On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:34:29 -0600, Carlos Bilbao wrote: > On 3/6/23 09:30, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2023/03/07 0:20, Carlos Bilbao wrote: >>> Hello Akira, >>> >>> On 3/6/23 09:13, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >>>> Hi Carlos, >>>> >>>> Minor nits in the Subject and Sob area. >>>> >>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:44:20 -0600, Carlos Bilbao wrote: >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] docs/sp_SP: Add process deprecated translation >>>> >>>> This summary looks ambiguous to me. >>>> >>>> Maybe >>>> >>>> docs/sp_SP: Add translation of process/deprecated >>> >>> This summary follows the same format followed in the past. Some examples: >>> >>> docs/sp_SP: Add process coding-style translation >>> docs/sp_SP: Add process magic-number translation >>> docs/sp_SP: Add process programming-language translation >>> docs/sp_SP: Add process email-clients translation >> >> Let me explain why "Add process deprecated translation" looks >> ambiguous. >> >> "deprecated translation" can be interpreted as "some translation >> which is deprecated". >> Of course you don't need to agree. > > I see what you mean. I'm sending v2 patch renamed to avoid confusion. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> ?? >>>> >>>>> Translate Documentation/process/deprecated.rst into Spanish. >>>>> >>>>> Co-developed-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@xxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Gonzalez <sergio.collado@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@xxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> To me, Co-developed-by: from the author of the patch looks >>>> strange, because it is obvious the author did some development on >>>> the patch. >>>> >>> >>> No, we both worked on this patch so Co-developed-by: is the appropriate >>> tagging. That being said, Sergio translated more than I did, so I put >>> him as sole Translator in the document itself. >> >> Hmm, anyway I don't think you are following the rule of Co-developed-by: >> explained in submitting-patches.rst. >> >> Again, you don't need to agree... ;-) > > But, why doesn't it follow the rule? > > The rule is "A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple people work on a single patch." > > IMHO this is the case here, but before I send v2 I'll wait to read you again in case we agree at that point. If you put "From: Sergio" as the first line in the Changelog, like this submission [1], then the Sob chain would make sense. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230227222957.24501-2-rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx/ Didn't you forgot to put it there? Just guessing... Thanks, Akira > >> >> Thanks, Akira >> >>> >>>> Which is your intent: >>>> >>>> Author: Carlos >>>> Co-developer: Sergio >>>> >>>> , or >>>> >>>> Author: Sergio >>>> Co-developer: Carlos >>>> >>>> ??? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Akira >>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../translations/sp_SP/process/deprecated.rst | 381 ++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> .../translations/sp_SP/process/index.rst | 1 + >>>>> 2 files changed, 382 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/translations/sp_SP/process/deprecated.rst >>>> [...] >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Carlos > > Thanks, > Carlos
