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 CA2B398F for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 436D4200A9 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 14:27:53 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Paul Walmsley Message-ID: <20140529182753.GJ25041@thunk.org> 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:". I agree in general, but if we're going to abolish the 2nd use entirely, then it's much simpler to keep Acked-by for its original meaning; it's easier to type, after all. This is basically I do for ext4 patches today; if someone sends me an acked-by in the #2 sense, I simply won't add it to the s-o-b section, and I don't let the fact that someone has asserted that they have done a casual review to give me a false sense of security; if I still have to do a deep review, I'm going to catch the casual stuff anyway, and the fact that a casual review doesn't obviate the need for a careful review. But if a senior ext4 developer adds a Reviewed-by:, that does lend a lot of value to me as a maintainer, since I can trust that certain folks like Jan and Eric and Lukas and others will do a good job doing the review, and that actually *does* offload significant amounts of work off my shoulders. Cheers, - Ted