On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:55:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg said:
> The definitions in SubmittingPatches are not hard rules and are, in
> fact, out of date. See Documentation/development-process/5.Posting for
> alternative definitions:
>
> - 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.
Unfortunately, SubmittingPatches says:
By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
(a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
the mainline kernel.
(b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
with the submitter's response to my comments.
(c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
issues which would argue against its inclusion.
(d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
purpose or function properly in any given situation.
and often, I'm only comfortable stating (b) - often, I'd like to *disavow* both
(a) and (c)(1) - I usually *don't* do a tech review, and may have no opinion as
to whether it's "cooked" enough to be included. Also, usually, the only "known
issue" from (c)(2) is the one thing I commented on for part (b)...
Comments-Addressed-Acked: anybody? :)
Attachment:
pgpOSFNw_DTWR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
