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 C7CE79AE for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 14:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.230]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285B31FC59 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 14:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:59:38 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "John W. Linville" Message-ID: <20140530105938.62fd566d@gandalf.local.home> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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, 28 May 2014 15:15:14 -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... > Yeah, I wouldn't want to type that. What about: Approved-by: ... That is reserved for maintainers only? -- Steve