Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:07:40 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by: |
| |
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:00:00PM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > > > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > > > > > + > > > > > > +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a > > > > > > +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can > > > > > > +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > What, no Tested-by: ? > > > > > >Heh. Indeed. I think there's room for both fwiw. > > > > Too verbose. Suggest a typedef. > > > > Signed-off-and-tested-by: Foo J. Bar <addy@corps> > > Signed-off-by: should imply Tested-by:, with the exception of the final > Signed-off-by: when it's merged into a tree. Subsystem maintainers cannot test each and every submission. Sometimes due to lack of HW at other times simply due to lack of time.
Signed-off-by is exactly one thing - a way to show the path a patch take. Then people on the path may have done more or less review/test.
Lot's of people confuses signed-of-by with acked-by btw - but this is waht this patch should correct.
Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |