From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1029A240234; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736781348; cv=none; b=e+BXtQdXumN54gwPs1siRDeERc1izlA5wL6DVEY4JIfspSZ2GvvHk1jBzAjnP+F3ibpc9H2bXHBBXIoWbSOa6KA3qdMm89BKXFTqJmQ6ORME+eIj3vdIKizLu0vN6GfbWrzA5/CxHP8Cyxgavq8PWYhaMc2wCxtMPg7IcWSXWIc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736781348; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tOsr0u6YI6rJI+UIEQnPUVOnfKu2wPIvBt2tMwFgtQQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XtnmSIQDSUWdJcpHxd7bJBU8nMX5SxJAw9nrHYjEz3+RJsLf35C1Z2uaSbbVYusdd7qOT7XTtmaTAjypuf5XDWc9gorMjUgk/bVBt4sIkQRMPlFwhr/9l/hbXyTfOlcsuoBdt/XP1t7Y5ryOKcnwhaHIhjFnfXd8avSrhPZxqq8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1FE2C4CED6; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:15:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:15:44 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jani Nikula Cc: Neal Gompa , Miguel Ojeda , Jonathan Corbet , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Luis Chamberlain , tech-board@groups.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , Shuah Khan , Dan Williams , "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by Message-ID: <20250113101544.527e157f@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <87ikqij3dj.fsf@intel.com> References: <20250112152946.761150-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20250112152946.761150-3-ojeda@kernel.org> <87ikqij3dj.fsf@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 14:38:00 +0200 Jani Nikula wrote: > As a maintainer, I mostly use Acked-by for two slightly different cases: > > 1) I've seen the patch. I have no objections to it being merged, I > approve of it. I haven't done a detailed review of it. Additionally, > I may indicate whether a detailed review (by someone else) is > required, or whether I think the ack is sufficient for merging. > > 2) I'm fine with the patch to the area I maintain being merged via some > other maintainers' repositories. I may or may not have also given my > Reviewed-by in this case, which alone is not an approval to merge via > other trees. Interesting. When I give a Reviewed-by: to a patch, I am most definitely letting it be merged into other trees. For anything I pull in, I don't add a Reviewed-by and will strip any tag that says I did review it as my Signed-off-by includes that I reviewed the patch. The difference I give between Acked-by and Reviewed-by is that my Acked-by is "I don't see anything wrong with the idea of the change, and it can go via another tree", where as a Reviewed-by is "I took time to understand the change itself, and have not found anything wrong with it". Basically, an Acked-by is "I took a quick look, and I'm OK with it, but if it breaks something of mine, I expect you to fix it." and Reviewed-by is "I took a deeper look, and if it breaks something of mine, I hold myself at fault, and will fix it myself". ;-) -- Steve