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 4877C910 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 20:46:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D33A1FD42 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 20:46:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Theodore Ts'o Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:03:28 +0200 Message-ID: <700704721.GMn4j9GJx9@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140529182753.GJ25041@thunk.org> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140529182753.GJ25041@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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 Thursday, May 29, 2014 02:27:53 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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. Well, perhaps we can reserve the Acked-by for maintainers and add something like Supported-by for the 2nd meaning. Rafael