2017-01-24 13:21, Ferruh Yigit: > On 1/24/2017 10:09 AM, Igor Ryzhov wrote: > > Thank you Steve. > > > > > I never did it before and I don't know if I have rights for that, but: > > > > Acked-by: Igor Ryzhov <iryz...@nfware.com <mailto:iryz...@nfware.com>> > > Unrelated to the patch itself, but since it has been mentioned, let me > share what I know, I believe Thomas or others will correct me if I am wrong: > > - Everyone can Ack. > And this is useful information for maintainers, so it is something > good when more people review and ack. Please do. > > - Multiple ack or review is better. > > - But each Ack does not have same weight, maintainer decides on this > weight, based on contribution of the person who ack'ed. > > - There is slight difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by: > > -- Acked-by: Kind of asking for patch to be applied, saying this patch > is good and please get it. > > -- Reviewed-by: Saying I have done the review at my best and patch looks > good to me. > > Acked-by has slightly more responsibility than Reviewed-by. > > If you are not maintainer of that field, and not have strong opinion > about that patch to be merged, it is possible to prefer Reviewed-by > against Acked-by. > > But overall both are good, and definitely better than not saying > anything at all.
We should definitely better document these tags. My view is that Reviewed-by is stronger because it says you really checked the patch. Acked-by means you agree with the intent and you trust the author. Any of these tags will be stronger if it is delivered by a maintainer. As conclusion, here you should stress you took the review job with a Reviewed-by tag. A maintainer is more inclined to use the Acked-by tag, even if he does a review. As the maintainer of ethdev, I thank you to take the review job so I won't have to wonder which kind of regression could be in the patch. I will just check the intent and will rely on your Reviewed-by.
