Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers)

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 23:26:38 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> 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.

-- Steve