On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:31 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I've had my Reviewed-by tags silently ignored or deliberately stripped because even though I've done a technical review, the maintainer does not believe that I did. Therefore, what I am saying is that maintainers seem to speciously decide whether an Acked-by or Reviewed-by tag is appropriate or not *after* someone has sent it. This is the fundamental problem I have right now. This decision is not the maintainer's to make, it is the submitter's. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
