Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>> Please don't do this in-body "Cc:"; it is meaningless.
>
> Oh. What I intended to say was that Matthieu reviewed my previous
> iteration- should I just put that information in the cover letter or
> is there some other notation I should use? I can't use "Reviewed-by"
> either because he only reviewed the previous iteration- not this one.
Some noise about Cc and Reviewed-by tags:
- I have been using Cc lines in patches to say "I consider this
person something of a maintainer of the subsystem in question
and would be particularly interested in his or her opinion."
The idea is that if the patch does not get acked and a Cc line
remains, people can tell that from the log. The benefits:
1) I remember to cc them
2) later it is easy to find who looks like a maintainer
3) the lack of ack is more obvious
Checking Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I find that
that is a misuse on my part (sorry). A person passing on a patch
to Linus is rather supposed to _add_ a Cc line in the rare event
that they want to explain that a certain person had an opportunity
to comment but did not comment (so Linus can know about their
indifference to the patch, I guess).
Neither use is as important for git, where many people read the
list so it is not as important to cc people to get proper review.
- I also used to abuse Cc lines to fit in contact information for a
person who helped me, until I learned to use Helped-by and similar
neologisms for that. Sorry.
- Again from Documentation/SubmittingPatches, I learned a while ago
that Reviewed-by, unlike Acked-by, can only be offered by the
reviewer and means that she is satisfied that the patch is ready
for application.
If you just want to credit Matthieu, I suppose it would make sense to
say "Thanks to Matthieu Moy for such-and-such" somewhere.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html