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 4D60E847 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 03:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD21C1F9F9 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 03:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <538BE918.4060609@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:01:44 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NeilBrown 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> <20140530105938.62fd566d@gandalf.local.home> <20140530151026.GE24054@tuxdriver.com> <1401484253.2364.3.camel@dabdike> <538BE4DE.6050200@infradead.org> <20140602125346.13988855@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <20140602125346.13988855@notabene.brown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 06/01/2014 07:53 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:43:42 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 05/30/2014 02:10 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 11:10 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:59:38AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2014 15:15:14 -0400 >>>>> "John W. Linville" wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> If we need such a tag, I like this verion better. >>> >>> Bikeshedded-by:? >>> >>> Discussed-in-circles-by:? >>> >>> Maintainer-penguin-pee-blessed-by:? >>> >>> OK, it's late here; but for the record, I think Acked-by is perfectly >>> clear and we don't need a new tag. >> >> Acked-by: me >> >> > > Are you just saying that you agree, or are you affirming this in your status > as MAINTAINER of the documentation? > > - Confused > Yes (I agree with James). -- ~Randy