Hi, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > I have the feeling from this thread that "Acked-by:" does not need any particular qualification, whereas Reviewed-by: "kinda" does. But I may have understood that all wrong. Btw, I say "kinda" as I see nothing in the Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: definition that require any qualification on the involved subsystem to give an Acked-by: or a Reviewed-by:. Maybe we [not?] need such some formal requirement. Just to highlight my point, you have never had any involvement[0] in scripts/kconfig/, but still gave an Acked-by:, how trivial the original patch might have been[1]. - Arnaud [0]: git's history can back me on this affirmation, no matter what you affirm, even using the linux-glx-history.git tree, as long as kconfig has been held in scripts/kconfig; .gitignore fixes does not count. [1]: please do not see any kind attack here, that's not the point. -- 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
