On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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/ Agreed, mind to send a patch? ;-) > > 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 > Yup, take netdev as an example, Davem is the only maintainer (not to say things like wireless) but definitely people like Eirc or Herbert is qualified to give Acked-by too. Thanks. -- 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
