On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:04:51AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:06 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 2:01 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Suggested-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@xxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: Neal Gompa <neal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Does this Ack add any value? > > > > Acked-by is meaningful only when it is given by someone who > > maintains the relevant area or has established a reputation. > > > > $ git grep "Neal Gompa" > > $ git shortlog -n -s | grep "Neal Gompa" > > 2 Neal Gompa > > > > His Ack feels more like "I like it" rather than a qualified endorsement. > > > > I have tested and looked over the patches from that lens. The tests you did, what exaclty was tested? If it was to just ensure no regressions, then that information is useful too, and with that you can just provide: Tested-by. But actual details of what you test are useful. We now also have automation of tests for modules, and expanding test coverage on that is always welcomed too [0] [1] [2], so far we have 0 Rust coverage. [0] https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops [1] https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops-ci [2] https://github.com/linux-kdevops/linux-modules-kpd/actions Luis
