[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectPatch tags [was writeout stalls in current -git]
    Andrew wrote:

    > > Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu <>
    > I would prefer Tested-by: :(

    This seems like as good an opportunity as any to toss my patch tags
    document out there one more time. I still think it's a good idea to
    codify some sort of consensus on what these tags mean...


    diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX
    index 299615d..1948a93 100644
    --- a/Documentation/00-INDEX
    +++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX
    @@ -286,6 +286,8 @@ parport.txt
    - how to use the parallel-port driver.
    - description and usage of the low level parallel port functions.
    + - description of the tags which can be added to patches
    - info on PCI error recovery.
    diff --git a/Documentation/patch-tags b/Documentation/patch-tags
    new file mode 100644
    index 0000000..6acde5e
    --- /dev/null
    +++ b/Documentation/patch-tags
    @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
    +Patches headed for the mainline may contain a variety of tags documenting
    +who played a hand in (or was at least aware of) their progress. All of
    +these tags have the form:
    + Something-done-by: Full name <email@address> [optional random stuff]
    +These tags are:
    +From: The original author of the patch. This tag will ensure
    + that credit is properly given when somebody other than the
    + original author submits the patch.
    +Signed-off-by: A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
    + patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
    + to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
    + terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. See
    + the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
    + Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
    + Signed-off-by. This tag assures upstream maintainers that
    + the provenance of the patch is known and allows the origin
    + of the patch to be reviewed should copyright questions
    + arise.
    +Acked-by: The person named (who should be an active developer in the
    + area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
    + no objection to its inclusion; it informs upstream
    + maintainers that a certain degree of consensus on the patch
    + as been achieved.. An Acked-by tag does not imply any
    + involvement in the development of the patch or that a
    + detailed review was done.
    +Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according
    + to the Reviewer's Statement as found at the bottom of this
    + file. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the
    + patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without
    + any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested
    + reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by
    + tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
    + reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review
    + which has been done on the patch.
    +Cc: The person named was given the opportunity to comment on
    + the patch. This is the only tag which might be added
    + without an explicit action by the person it names. This
    + tag documents that potentially interested parties have been
    + included in the discussion.
    +Tested-by: The patch has been successfully tested (in some
    + environment) by the person named. This tag informs
    + maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides
    + a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures
    + credit for the testers.
    +Reviewer's statement of oversight, v0.02
    +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
    + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
    + appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel.
    + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
    + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the
    + submitter's response to my comments.
    + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission,
    + I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to
    + the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its
    + inclusion.
    + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not
    + (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
    + that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
    + given situation.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-06 17:27    [W:0.024 / U:13.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site