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 7F089AB4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 20:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119922038B for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 20:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:12:28 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: Paul Walmsley Message-ID: <20140528201228.GA14247@cloud> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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, May 28, 2014 at 06:48:47PM +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:". In practice, (2) seems to have been mostly replaced by "Reviewed-by"; I rarely see Acked-by used for cases other than (1): "I'm the maintainer or an affected subsystem developer, I approve of this patch, but I don't intend to take it through my own tree." - Josh Triplett