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 5CF1BADE for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 21:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EB7B2027B for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 21:59:01 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Steven Rostedt Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 00:16:10 +0200 Message-ID: <2009259.LqT1atvLeM@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140530172921.569cf7bf@gandalf.local.home> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1505533.GV2VtpdML7@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140530172921.569cf7bf@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 Friday, May 30, 2014 05:29:21 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2014 23:26:38 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > > Where as, a maintainer could pass in an "Approved-by" which means "Yes, > > > I approve this change and it may go through another tree instead of > > > mine". > > > > That's what an ACK means, though, isn't it? > > I would argue that it means that as well as other meanings. > > > > > To me, really, Acked-by from a non-maintainer is something like a "+1" in G+. > > > > I would prefer the new tag to suggest that meaning more directly. Something > > like "Fine-by", maybe? > > I actually disagree with this analysis. I like to see Acked-by from > those that may not be the maintainer, but have some stake in the change > that is being made. A Acked-by from a random person that I don't know > is more of a "+1" check, which I agree is useless and I don't even > bother adding them. > > Thus, my point is to distinguish between a "Acked-by" that comes from > someone that has a stake in the code and approves the change (which to > me is the real meaning of Acked-by) and a stronger "Approved-by" which > comes from a maintainer that is stating that they are OK with you > pushing it through your tree even though it touches their code. > > I'm not saying people have to use "Approved-by", but I would like to be > able to us it myself when people make a change in my code and I would > like to let the maintainer of the tree it is going in to know they have > my OK to pull it. > > I ask for Acked-bys from people if they can't give me a Reviewed-by > but they still have a stake in the code that is being modified, and I > want to know it's still OK with them. But they are not a maintainer > telling me it's OK to take their code into my tree. That makes sense. Rafael