On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:16AM -0700, Jon Cargille wrote: > > I assume you want to say something like: > > That's a much better commit message--thank you, Sean! > > > Jim's tag is unnecessary, unless he was a middleman between Eric and Jon, > > I appreciate the feedback; I was trying to capture that Jim "was in the > patch's delivery path." (per submitting-patches.rst), but it sounds like that > is intended for a more explicit middle-man relationship than I had > understood. Yep, exactly. > Jim reviewed it internally before sending, which sounds like it should be > expressed as an "Acked-by" instead; is that accurate? Or Reviewed-by. The proper (and easiest) way to handle this is to use whatever tag Jim (or any other reviewer) provides, e.g. submitting-patches states, under 12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:, states: 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 I.e. all *-by tags are only supposed to be used with explicit permission from the named person. This doesn't mean the person has to literally write Reviewed-by or whatever (though that's usually the case), but it does mean you should confirm it's ok to add a tag, e.g. if someone replies "LGTM" and you want to interpret that as a Reviewed-by or Acked-by, explicitly ask if it's ok to add the tag.
