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 A6E1F995 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475AE203A4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from /spool/local by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:40 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.18]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5206219D8039 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:31 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4SJog9H11206986 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 21:50:42 +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 s4SJpboP010702 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 13:51:37 -0600 Message-ID: <1401306696.13546.168.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> From: Mimi Zohar To: "John W. Linville" Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 15:51:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140528191514.GE13255@tuxdriver.com> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1401304315.13546.142.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <20140528191514.GE13255@tuxdriver.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 15:15 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > 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. > > I hate to bikeshed this, but "Maintainer-acked-by" seems too long to type... Agreed, but I don't think its much longer than any of the others. :) Perhaps more people would feel comfortable adding "Reviewed-by", if they could limit the scope. Instead of defining a new tag, perhaps all that is needed is adding an optional field. For example, "Reviewed-by [option]: ", where 'option' could be style, logic, syntax, ... Mimi