On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 4:51 PM Neal Gompa <neal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This doesn't make sense as a distinction. What defines "thoroughly"?
It is a call, but when you give a Reviewed-by, it at least includes
what the "Reviewer's statement of oversight" mentions, unlike an
Acked-by.
> To be honest, I think you should go the other way and become okay with
> people sending Reviewed-by tags when people have looked over a patch
> and consider it good to land.
I am not sure what you mean. It is OK for people to send Reviewed-by
tags. The original discussion was about Acked-by because that is the
one that was usually used by maintainers only.
If what you mean is that Reviewed-by should not require an actual
review, then that is not the purpose of the tag. Please see the
"Reviewer's statement of oversight" -- its first bullet says:
(a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
the mainline kernel.
> To me, Acked-by mostly makes sense as a tag for people who *won't*
> review the code, not for those who *will*. Blending Acked-by and
> Reviewed-by just creates confusion.
The sentence about "thoroughly reviewing" in this patch is an example,
not the only use case. The next sentence gives another example that
explicitly says "may not have carried out a technical review".
This series tries to, precisely, widen the use cases of Acked-by and
explain those, so that it can be used by others who have not actually
carried out a technical review. Still, it is not meant to be used
randomly -- one is supposed to be a stakeholder in some way (please
see the previous patch).
Thanks for the quick review!
Cheers,
Miguel
