On 07.02.25 02:42, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 03:30:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst >> index dbb763a8de901d..22fa925353cf54 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst >> @@ -268,10 +268,15 @@ The tags in common use are: >> - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the >> opportunity to comment on it. >> >> -Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate >> -for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using >> -Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if >> -the bug was reported in private. >> +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. For those three implicit permission is sufficient if the person >> +contributed to the Linux kernel using that name and email address according >> +to the lore archives or the commit history -- and in case of Reported-by: >> +and Suggested-by: did the reporting or suggestion in public. Note, >> +bugzilla.kernel.org is a public place in this sense, but email addresses >> +used there are private; so do not expose them in tags, unless the person >> +used them in earlier contributions. > > So for example I can only include Tested-by: when a contributor who tested > my patch explicitly offer the tag by replying to it i.e. with the tag, right? At some point a text must leave the interpretation up to the reader. I would say a "yes, that's okay" to the question "is it okay to add a 'tested-by' tag in the patch description; note, your name and email address will then end up in the commit history and can not be removed there" is sufficient "permission" as well. > The wording looks OK. > > Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> Thx! Ciao, Thorsten
