On 06/12/2017 05:20 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 08:35 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: >>> Reviewed-by: Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> (This *is* the new hot way to say ACK, right?) >> >> It is not a replacement (AFAIK only rebels like John and Pavel use it) >> and it is not an equivalent (with Reviewed-by, I assume the reviewer >> wants me to make it a part of the commit history). > > Both ACK and R-B are perfectly acceptable ways to signal the > submitter you consider their code suitable for merging. As a > project we don't currently mandate or prefer either form, so > feel free to use the one you like best :) Yeah, I noticed the discussion awhile back and then noticed that some people had started using it, so wasn't sure if I'd missed some memo about "phasing it in" or something. Personally, I like the ease/brevity of "ACK", and as for having a Reviewed-by as part of the commit history, I have two comments: 1) I don't care much about having *my* reviews documented in the history, but it's sometimes useful to know who the reviewer was when it's someone else (of course others will say the same for patches that *I* review, so... :-) So I'm conflicted. It seems like a good idea but takes more time. Too bad there's not some commit hook that could search the email archives for the message with the ACK for a patch and add a Reviewed-by to the commit automatically... -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
