lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Documentation/patch-tags v3
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Does 'Reviewed-by' also imply 'Signed-off-by'?

Does a technical review include a review of licensing and copyright
issues? (It doesn't seem to be a big issue though if the submitter
signed off on it, like he should.)

> In other words, who is actually supposed to add this tag?
>
> Is it the reviewer who passes on an officially 'reviewed' patch to the
> maintainer, or is it the patch author him/herself who is responsible for
> soliciting reviews and adding the tag?

Anybody in the patch forwarding chain (author, maintainers... usually
the latter) can add Acked-by and Tested-by, based on incoming feedback.
The feedback may have explicitly stated an Acked-by or Tested-by or may
have said something equivalent. (In case of Tested-by, an appropriate
description of how was tested should have been sent. An explicit
Tested-by from the tester himself is moot then.)

Reviewed-by is a different beast. If Jon's definition of Reviewed-by
(or another definition) is "officially" adopted, people in the patch
forwarding chain should only add this tag if the reviewer sent it
explicitly in his response. Unlike with Acked-by and Tested-by, we must
not guess whether a reviewer wants to have his Reviewed-by added.

[...]
>> + (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.
>
> I'm confused about how to reconcile (c) and (d) here. If you are not
> sure about whether or not the patch will achieve its stated purpose, why
> would you be arguing that it is a worthwhile modification?

Being sure of something and making guarantees are different things.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-11 23:25    [W:0.048 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site