Hi Aleksa, On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 11:27:04PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > > I think 'author' is more appropriate than 'developer' for documentation. > > It is also more consistent with the Copyright notice, which assigns > > copyright to the authors (documented in AUTHORS). And ironically, even > > the kernel documentation about Co-authored-by talks about authorship (Oops, s/Co-authored-by/Co-developed-by/) > > instead of development: > > > > Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by > > multiple developers; it is used to give attribution to > > co-authors (in addition to the author attributed by the From: > > tag) when several people work on a single patch. > > Sure, fixed. > > Can you also clarify whether CONTRIBUTING.d/patches/range-diff is > required for submissions? I don't think b4 supports including it (and I > really would prefer to not have to use raw git-send-email again just for > man-pages -- b4 has so many benefits over raw git-send-email). Is the > b4-style changelog I include in the cover-letter sufficient? Yes, that's sufficient. As Captain Barbossa would say, "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules". ;) > I like to think of myself as a fairly prolific git user, but I don't > think I've ever seen --range-diff= output in a git-send-email patch > before... Yup, I only learnt about a few years ago. I have to say it's great as a reviewer; it changed my efficiency reviewing code when we started using it at $dayjob-1. And even as a submitter, it has also saved me a few times, when I introduced a regression in some revision of a patch set, and I could easily trace back to the revision where I had introduced it by reading the range diffs, which are much shorter than the actual code. Maybe we could ping Konstantin to add this to b4? Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature