On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:52 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:53:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > But do as you like. Which parts of SubmittingPatches do you think > > support your interpretation? > > > and should we have this line: > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. > > changed to: > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by: or Reviewed-by:. > > e.g.? > > Current practice seems to be that Acked-by is used instead of > Reviewed-by - the latter is comparatively rare. ISTM that more education and encouragement are needed about Reviewed-by:. (Patch Review is a possible kernel summit topic.) and that SubmittingPatches should be updated since we generally refer people to that file and not to Documentation/development-process/ Samples from my partial mailing list archives: linux-pci mailing list: Acked-by: 93 Reviewed-by: 81 linux-mm mailing list: Acked-by: 2104 Reviewed-by: 1344 netdev mailing list: Acked-by: 1366 Reviewed-by: 659 --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
