> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from > > > > Signed-off-by: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > + > > > > > +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or > > > > handling of a > > > > > +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then > > > > they can > > > > > +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > What, no Tested-by: ? > > > >Heh. Indeed. I think there's room for both fwiw. > > Too verbose. Suggest a typedef. > > Signed-off-and-tested-by: Foo J. Bar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: should imply Tested-by:, with the exception of the final Signed-off-by: when it's merged into a tree. Tested-by:, if it really is necessary or useful, should be reserved for only those who test something but weren't involved in its development. Adding it to the tag is unnecessary unless somebody thinks there's a serious problem with untested patches being introduced by first-hand maintainers that a forced reminder would remedy. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
