On Sun, 02 Dec 2018 15:22:15 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 00:20 +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 02:57:12PM -0200, Marcelo Schmitt wrote: > > > Add a devicetree documentation for the ad5933 and ad5934 impedance > > > converter, network analyzer. > > > > > > Co-Developed-by: Gabriel Capella <gabriel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > checkpatch spits out: > > > > WARNING: Non-standard signature: Co-Developed-by: > > > > Co-developed-by Vs Co-Developed-by ? > > > > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-Developed-by: > > > > Confusing! Don't know which one is correct. > > I think neither one. > > What's the real purpose or value of it? > There isn't one as far as I can tell. > > Just use Signed-off-by: > > Or maybe add multiple "Authored-by:" if > anyone is all that concerned about authorship > crediting... This is output of pair programming so only fair to acknowledge both developers (or more if a larger group). Right now we have a guide that says Co-developed-by is the way to do that. I would stick to that. If people feel something else makes sense then they should propose a change to the documentation and hopefully we can reach some agreement on this. I'm happy with Co-developed-by in IIO as I think it's a fair reflection of what happened. Authored-by would be fine but isn't a standard tag documented anywhere. Jonathan > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Schmitt <marcelo.schmitt1@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Capella <gabriel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > Use `./scripts/get_maintainer.pl <your_patch>` to list the DT > > maintainers and the relevant mailing list. > > > > >
