| Message ID | 20230122193443.60267-1-didi.debian@cknow.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | module.h: Fix full name of the GPL | expand |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> No patch description, really? > --- > include/linux/module.h | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h > index 8c5909c0076c..329fa0b56642 100644 > --- a/include/linux/module.h > +++ b/include/linux/module.h > @@ -186,14 +186,14 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void); > * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free > * software modules > * > - * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2] > - * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] > - * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] > - * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > + * "GPL" [GNU General Public License v2] > + * "GPL v2" [GNU General Public License v2] > + * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU General Public License v2 rights and more] > + * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > * or BSD license choice] > - * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > + * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > * or MIT license choice] > - * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > + * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > * or Mozilla license choice] > * > * The following other idents are available Why did you do that? Maybe as justification for your other GPL name expansion fix patches? Anyway, let's see what Linus thinks.
On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 03:49:02 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> > > No patch description, really? Writing the exact same comment 5+ times ... really? * You might take inspiration from Greg's bot, which clearly identifies itself as being a bot, is WAY more friendly and actually useful as it points out why it's wrong and where I can find out how to improve it. Your messages were none of that. While I should have, but hadn't read "The canonical patch format" section Greg's bot pointed to, it turns out that my own common sense/practice didn't violate it. I'm a HUGE proponent of extended commit messages and often try to convince others to do so too, often pointing to the linux kernel to take inspiration from. "The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might have led to this patch." So it should add context for people who'd see the patch months/years down the line. As the Subject/summary phrase rarely is capable of providing the *needed* context, that's highly useful and valuable. In this case, the patch is simple and IMO the Subject already contains all the details one need have to understand this patch 5 years from now. So I could've added "The full name of the GPL is not GNU Public License, but GNU *General* Public License." to/as the explanation body, but I didn't consider that to provide extra (needed) info which wasn't clear from the Subject and diff. My only previous patch submission (to the linux kernel) did contain a full explanation body: 7074b39d83f5d71fa4f0521b28bd4fb3a22152c1 *) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same comment from Bagas to several of them. I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely fixing a spelling error. See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/ AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes. That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too). > > include/linux/module.h | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h > > index 8c5909c0076c..329fa0b56642 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/module.h > > +++ b/include/linux/module.h > > @@ -186,14 +186,14 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void); > > > > * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free > > * software modules > > * > > > > - * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2] > > - * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] > > - * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 > > rights and more] > > - * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > > + * "GPL" [GNU General Public License v2] > > + * "GPL v2" [GNU General Public License v2] > > + * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU General Public License > > v2 rights and > > more] + * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > > > > * or BSD license choice] > > > > - * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > > + * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > > > > * or MIT license choice] > > > > - * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 > > + * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 > > > > * or Mozilla license choice] > > * > > * The following other idents are available > > Why did you do that? Maybe as justification for your other GPL name > expansion fix patches? Debian's lintian tool complained about it and after looking at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ I concluded that lintian was right. As the full/proper name of the GPL is GNU General Public License, I submitted a patch to fix that. > Anyway, let's see what Linus thinks. Sorry you all had to see my rant, but after seeing (and ignoring) Bagas' rather useless and exactly the same comment numerous times yesterday and getting accused of being a bot (!) and someone else feeling the need to point out Bagas' less then constructive behavior AND me feeling shitty about my clusterfsck and spending considerable time fixing that (which is fair) yesterday, it seemed Bagas went out of their way to find the one patch I hadn't asked to ignore and add the same useless and bot-like comment to, I had enough. I'm not a delicate flower which needs to be handled with extreme care, but everyone does have a breaking point. If this patch is just wrong, please ignore it. If it needs improvement, let me know and I'll do my best to do so. Regards, Diederik
On 1/24/23 20:32, Diederik de Haas wrote: > *) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU > Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same > comment from Bagas to several of them. That was what I mean: not being word-for-word same, but semantically same text. I guess everyone here (and myself) should be immersed more into English-speaking idioms... If you'd like to see what my reviews are, please see (in lore.kernel.org search bar) `f:bagasdotme@gmail.com AND s:"Re:"`. Read the whole message. > I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other > ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely > fixing a spelling error. > See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/ > > AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to > that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes. > That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too). > OK. >> Why did you do that? Maybe as justification for your other GPL name >> expansion fix patches? > > Debian's lintian tool complained about it and after looking at > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ I concluded that lintian was right. > Nice. > As the full/proper name of the GPL is GNU General Public License, I submitted > a patch to fix that. > OK, I know the reason. >> Anyway, let's see what Linus thinks. > > Sorry you all had to see my rant, but after seeing (and ignoring) Bagas' > rather useless and exactly the same comment numerous times yesterday and > getting accused of being a bot (!) and someone else feeling the need to point > out Bagas' less then constructive behavior AND me feeling shitty about my > clusterfsck and spending considerable time fixing that (which is fair) > yesterday, it seemed Bagas went out of their way to find the one patch I hadn't > asked to ignore and add the same useless and bot-like comment to, I had > enough. I'm not a delicate flower which needs to be handled with extreme care, > but everyone does have a breaking point. > Let's assume that I'm on the subsystem maintainer side. I receive patches from many people (and you), including first-time contributors who has just started to learn how to submit kernel patches. I may take more care on patch description (which would later become commit message in the changelog) and description. I may follow Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst literally and check for code correctness/look more (disclaimer: since I'm autistic and had like to see all patches having my own quality level, i.e. raise the bar). Good developers are expected to addresses any reviews not only from me but also others. Sometimes I massage the patch description when I have time and motivation to do so when applying, but I may simply want to see the reroll if I'm lazy. Other maintainers may or may not have "harsh" requirement as mine did, but that's the life in the kernel development: there are idiosyncrasies which can only be understood by immersing yourself into them. > If this patch is just wrong, please ignore it. If it needs improvement, let me > know and I'll do my best to do so. > OK, thanks!
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:32:26PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 03:49:02 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> > > > > No patch description, really? > <some odd rationale to describe why your commit log is empty> > So I could've added "The full name of the GPL is not GNU Public License, but > GNU *General* Public License." to/as the explanation body, but I didn't > consider that to provide extra (needed) info which wasn't clear from the > Subject and diff. > > My only previous patch submission (to the linux kernel) did contain a full > explanation body: 7074b39d83f5d71fa4f0521b28bd4fb3a22152c1 > > *) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU > Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same > comment from Bagas to several of them. > I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other > ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely > fixing a spelling error. > See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/ We use SPDX for precise langauges for the license used. Patches like these and the one you just sent are otherwise not adding more. > AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to > that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes. > That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too). The only reference we care for is the SPDX one and that work is already done. As such minor fixes in spelling like yours won't do any good but just noise at this point. That's exactly why SPDX license tags were embraced, to make this simple and let us move on with life while having one simple codified reference to the license so we don't need to deal with redundant patches fixing grammar on license many times. As such this changes is not needed. Luis
diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h index 8c5909c0076c..329fa0b56642 100644 --- a/include/linux/module.h +++ b/include/linux/module.h @@ -186,14 +186,14 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void); * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free * software modules * - * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2] - * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2] - * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more] - * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 + * "GPL" [GNU General Public License v2] + * "GPL v2" [GNU General Public License v2] + * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU General Public License v2 rights and more] + * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 * or BSD license choice] - * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 + * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 * or MIT license choice] - * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2 + * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU General Public License v2 * or Mozilla license choice] * * The following other idents are available
Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> --- include/linux/module.h | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)