On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:00:00PM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
Subsystem maintainers cannot test each and every submission.
Sometimes due to lack of HW at other times simply due to lack of time.
Signed-off-by is exactly one thing - a way to show the path
a patch take. Then people on the path may have done more or less review/test.
Lot's of people confuses signed-of-by with acked-by btw - but this is waht this
patch should correct.
Sam
-
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/
