On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:21:36 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:49:20 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Raghavendra D Prabhu > > > > > > >>> <rprabhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> Hi, > > > > > > >>>> I am seeing Wunused-but-set warning while make nconfig. Looks like > > > > > > >>>> active_menu is not used. Removing it fixes the warning. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Acked-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> Out of curiosity, what is your status to ACK such patch ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of status do you need to ACK such a simple patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per Documentation/SubmittingPatches: > > > > > > > > > > > > << > > > > > > 13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: > > > > > > The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the > > > > > > development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > > > > > > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, it is not a strong requirement... unfortunately. So, let's > > > > > > have some fun and go ACK thousand of trivial patch just to generate > > > > > > traffic on the LKML and give myself self-importance :-) > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: is mostly used as a weak version of Reviewed-by: > > > > > and the "definition" in SubmittingPatches is not accurate IMO. > > > > > I.e., it can be used by anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I was under the impression that Reviewed-by: was a weaker > > > > thing than Acked-by: - I certainly have been using it as such. > > > > > > > > I've always interpreted Acked-by: as being something you could apply if > > > > you were the author, maintainer or other person with similar strong > > > > background knowledge of the code. Where Reviewed-by: could be used by > > > > anyone, as long as they had taken the time to read the patch and try and > > > > understand what was going on and the result/conclusion looked good. > > > > > > I don't see it in SubmittingPatches, but there was some discussion at the > > > time (IIRC!!) that Reviewed-by: indicates that you are willing to support/fix > > > the patch if the patch author(s) disappear. I.e., you are willing to take > > > some ownership responsibility of the patch. > > > > > > or I could be dreaming... > > > > > I'm not going to claim that I recall all the discussion that went on at > > the time, there was quite a bit IIRC (and I'm too lazy to read up on all > > of it). But to me it seems to make sense that if you have strong knowledge > > of/involvement with the code being patched then you can offer your > > Acked-by: after reviewing the patch. If you don't have such > > knowledge/involvement but have nevertheless reviewed the code and found it > > to be OK, then you can signal that with a Reviewed-by:. > > > > In any case, you can't expect people to base their Acked-by/Reviewed-by > > replies on some conclusion in some email thread that happened years ago > > ack that. > > > but was never written down in some document in the repository. > > It is only reasonable to expect people to behave according to the rules > > laid out in SubmittingPatches and similar documents, and those rules > > currently seem to support my interpretation, not yours. > > In Documentation/SubmittingPatches, Reviewed-by: contains a "Reviewer's > statment of oversight." That alone is more formal than Acked-by: is. > > Plus this paragraph acknowledges that "Review" can be a serious and > time-consuming task, not a simple "looks OK to me": > > "A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an > appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious > technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can > offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to > reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been > done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to > understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally > increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel." > > I can see little about Acked-by: that is formal when it comes to patch review. > E.g.: > 'Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by:.' > I'll concede to those points. My original understanding/reading was different but you make some good points. > But do as you like. Which parts of SubmittingPatches do you think > support your interpretation? > Originally, text such as this: "Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code..." "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable ... I do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated purpose ..." But I take that back. Your interpretation now seems like the more correct one to me. > 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.? > Might make sense. -- Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please.
