Recent searches
Search options
@lkundrak@octodon.social @kernellogger `Co-authored-by:` is a great tag for situations like this. I don't see it super-often in the kernel though.
@Conan_Kudo @lkundrak@octodon.social
It's "Co-developed-by:" in Linux:
$ git log origin/master --grep 'Co-developed-by:' --since="1 year ago" | grep 'Co-developed-by:' | wc -l
1312
$ git log origin/master --grep 'Co-developed-by:' --since="1 year ago" --oneline | wc -l
1028
@kernellogger @lkundrak@octodon.social That's... annoying. That tag isn't recognized by most tools, and so it's going to be a pain to query for that with things that index git commits...
@kernellogger @Conan_Kudo @lkundrak@octodon.social I'm not a kernel contributor, but extrapolating the experience from other projects, this one's hard.
If both versions of the fix were reasonably close or, at least, there was *something* from the original in the maintainer's version, two 'Signed-off-by', explaining the differences or stating that's is based on the other could have been fine.
But, in this case, there's nothing from the original in the merged patch, so it wasn't 'co-developed'.
@kernellogger @Conan_Kudo @lkundrak@octodon.social A 'softer-touch approach' could have been, perhaps, trying to led he contributor to write something close to what you're expecting, but that can potentially requite a LOT of time, and we all know many maintainers are overworked, so... it's complicated.