Em Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:25:43 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On 02.12.24 17:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:54:49 +0100 > > Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> On 02.12.24 15:45, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >>> Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:54:56 +0100 > >>> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >>>> On 02.12.24 11:02, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >>>>> Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:28:57 +0100 > >>>>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >>>>>>> +Tagging people requires permission > >>>>>>> +---------------------------------- > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> +Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as all except for Cc:, > >>>>>>> +Reported-by:, and Suggested-by: need explicit permission of the person named. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hmm... There is another tag that we use without requiring explicit permissions: > >>>>> > >>>>> Requested-by: > >>>>> > >>>>> There are currently 376 occurrences on 6.13-rc1. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is used when a maintainer or reviewer publicly requests some changes to > >>>>> be added on a patch series. > >>> [...] > >>> You're basically requesting explicit permission for any "non-official" > >>> tags as well, including reviewed-by. This is not what it is wanted here. > >> > >> I could easily use a slightly modified phrase like "...as all > >> mentioned above except...". > > > > It seems a lot better to me. > > I went with this a slightly different variant for readability: > > 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. > > Hope that's okay. If I don't hear anything, I'll assume your earlier > Reviewed-by: is still valid. It is. Just in case: Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Ciao, Thorsten Thanks, Mauro
