From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B471DAB4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB2F203CE for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from /spool/local by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:11:59 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052C23E40044 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:11:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4SH8b9p9109864 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:08:37 +0200 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s4SJBuSo005662 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:11:56 -0600 Message-ID: <1401304315.13546.142.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> From: Mimi Zohar To: Paul Walmsley Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 15:11:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 18:48 +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Also long-overdue is a clarification on exactly what "Acked-by" means. > Right now it is being used for at least two distinct and > mutually-incompatible purposes: > > 1. A maintainer A for code affected by a patch, who is distinct from a > maintainer B queuing a patch, has reviewed the patch and has cleared it as > being OK for maintainer B to send upstream > > 2. A casual review has been done by someone who is not a maintainer for > the code in question > > What I would propose is to have the first use replaced by a new tag, > "Maintainer-acked-by:", and the second use abolished, along with > "Acked-by:", and replaced by "Reviewed-by:". Agreed, "Acked-by" is ambiguous and should be dis-ambiguated. "Reviewed-by:" is too much of a barrier for people to feel comfortable using. Just as the "Maintainer-acked-by:" would imply a subset of the patch related to the subsystem, "Reviewed-by" needs something similar to limit its scope. Mimi