On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 14:48:29 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16:56AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > > On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by? > > > > I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks > > fine, but that's all I can say here. > > Ok, that would count as an Acked-by, i.e. from > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: > > ------------------------- > > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an > explicit ack). > > ------------------------- > > If you had a ppc machine _and_ had applied and tested the patch, that > would allow us to use a Tested-by tag.
I see, I'm still unfamiliar with this process. But yes, do consider it an `Acked-by` from my side then. Cheers -- Milian Wolff | milian.wo...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts
