Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 04:19:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > 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.
Right, then there is another tag there that is relevant to this discussion: Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1496312681-20133-1-git-send-email-pbonz...@redhat.com which will has the Message-ID of the message with this patch, embedded in a URL that when clicked will bring you to the thread where the patch was submitted and the acks, tested-by, reviewed-by, etc were provided, so that we can go back and check the history of the patch. - Arnaldo
