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 B2D36A8A for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 21:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.226]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E592027A for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 21:29:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:29:21 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Message-ID: <20140530172921.569cf7bf@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1505533.GV2VtpdML7@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <700704721.GMn4j9GJx9@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140530110640.70d6ae02@gandalf.local.home> <1505533.GV2VtpdML7@vostro.rjw.lan> 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 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. -- Steve