[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    Subject[PATCH] Documenting patch tags yet one more time
    OK, Linus questioned the From: tag, so I've just taken that out for
    now. Paul Jackson asked:

    > Question -- should this documentation of patch-tags be in its own file,
    > or added to Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

    Clearly I had once thought the former, but, on review, I've changed my
    mind. So here's a version which merges the information into
    SubmittingPatches instead.



    Add documentation for more patch tags

    Add documentation of the Cc:, Tested-by:, and Reviewed-by: tags to
    SubmittingPatches, with an emphasis on trying to nail down what
    Reviewed-by: really means.

    Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <>

    diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
    index 08a1ed1..cc00c8e 100644
    --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
    +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
    @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
    point out some special detail about the sign-off.

    -13) When to use Acked-by:
    +13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:

    The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
    development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
    @@ -349,11 +349,59 @@ Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
    For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
    one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
    the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
    - When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
    +When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
    list archives.

    +If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
    +provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to 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

    -14) The canonical patch format
    +14) Using Test-by: and Reviewed-by:
    +A Tested-by: tag indicates that 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.
    +Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
    +acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
    + Reviewer's statement of oversight
    + 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.
    +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. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
    +understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
    +increase the liklihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
    +15) The canonical patch format

    The canonical patch subject line is:

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-08 21:45    [W:0.024 / U:74.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site