lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ext4: Variable to signed to check return code
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:38:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
> maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
> inclusion into the kernel."
>
> And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate
> that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.
>
> Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth
> knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's
> Statement. I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a
> shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone.

Note the "often a maintainer of the relevant code" bit. And
"appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've
done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very
different understanding of how Acked-by and Reviewed-by than you do.

That being said, no offence to you, but any kind of Acked-by or
Reviewed-by from you is not going to have as much weight as say, a
Reviewed-by: from someone like Jan Kara. That's just because I don't
have a good sense to your technical ability, and so I'd be doing a
full review myself and not rely on your review at all....

Cheers,

- Ted

P.S. And if I find a problem in the patch, and someone had attached
their Acked-by or Reviewed-by to it, it would have the same negative
hit to their reputation either way. Not a big deal if it happens only
once, or it's an esepcially tricky issue, but it if happens more than
once or is really blatent, I as the maintainer definitely do remember.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-18 21:55    [W:0.060 / U:2.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site