On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Jesper, > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > 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. > > The definitions in SubmittingPatches are not hard rules and are, in > fact, out of date. See Documentation/development-process/5.Posting for > alternative definitions: > Thank you for pointing me at that document. Was not aware of it (or I'd forgotten if I ever did know of it). > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > inclusion into the kernel. > > and > > - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness; > see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more > detail. > > and then compare the dates for these definitions: > > 0f44cd23 (Andrew Morton 2007-06-08 13:46:45 -0700 401) Acked-by: > is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > 0f44cd23 (Andrew Morton 2007-06-08 13:46:45 -0700 402) maintainer > neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. > > 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 205) - Acked-by: > indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 206) maintainer > of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > 75b02146 (Jonathan Corbet 2008-09-30 15:15:56 -0600 207) inclusion > into the kernel. > > So it is NOT reasonable 'to expect people to behave according to the > rules laid out in SubmittingPatches and similar documents' because > such documents have never had any hard rules! The documents are > guidelines that attempt to document how things work here, not lay down > the law. > I know that. I was never trying to say that they were hard rules/law. I was just trying to express my personal interpretation of those guidelines and how I have been using them. If it came across as me saying that they were set-in-stone rules then I guess I need to improve my communication skills. -- 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. -- 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
