On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:09 AM Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2022 14.31 > > > > 09/05/2022 14:24, Stanisław Kardach: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:13 AM David Marchand > > <david.march...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > About the new "Sponsored-by" tag, it should not raise warnings in > > the > > > > CI if we agree on its addition. > > > > > > > I'll modify it in V2 to be in form of: > > > Sponsored by: StarFive Technology > > > > You mean removing the hyphen? > > I think it is better to keep it so all tags have the same format. > > I agree with Thomas. Please keep the hyphen. > > > > > > ... > > > Signed-off-by: ... > > > > > > This was suggested by Stephen Hemminger as having a precedent in > > Linux > > > kernel. Interestingly enough first use of this tag in kernel source > > was > > > this year in January. > > I don't get it! Should employees start adding Sponsored-by: <Employer name> > to their commits, when doing it as part of their job? And how about contract > developers, should they also add a Sponsored-by: <Company name> tag, since > they are working under contract and getting paid by that company? If I understand correctly, the concern about the commit log staying technical and not introducing extra elements not beneficial to the project, correct? In the scope of this particular patchset, the companies sponsoring the work are in copyrights for appropriate files, so I can remove the tags. For my own curiosity, what would be a proper way for a contract developer to mark the company sponsoring the work? Some companies may not care, others will. Maybe it would be beneficial to add a comment on this into the contributing guide (or it's already there and I've missed it)? > > Can someone please provide a reference to the discussion about this on the > LKML? I'm curious why they felt the need for such a tag. Actually I can't find any discussion on this. Perhaps it was missed because: "Sponsored by" (without a hyphen) doesn't trigger checkpatch and only 2 patches (6 and 7) in whole patchset contain it. Patchset for reference: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg220474.html
> > > > > The precedent is not strong enough to be copied in my opinion. > > I agree. Also, if it is an acceptable signature tag, the checkpatch.pl script > should be updated: > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc6/source/scripts/checkpatch.pl#L607 > >
