On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> No, it means: >> >> "If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a >> patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can >> arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog." > > Isn't that tested-by or reviewed-by? Quoting from Documentation/SubmittingPatches was just a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that you have a local/narrower interpretation of Acked-by, and that Jacek's Acked-by is consistent with what's documented. [..] > We're just struggling to understand why it's there. If it's read and > approved the patch, then reviewed-by is the more appropriate. If it's > actually booted and ran through a set of unit/QA tests, then it should > be tested-by. > Ok, reviewed-by is what we'll aim to do for Intel-internal "acks" for isci / libsas going forward. -- Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
