On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > (Just a nit and responding because this happens commonly). > > You probably mean Reviewed-by. Acked-by really means, "I am not the > maintainer of this area, I have not reviewed this patch, but I am > generally okay with the idea as best I can tell."
Don't you mean "I *am* the maintainer of this area" ? I've always assumed it means "as the maintainer I have a potential veto over this code change and I am explicitly not exercising it even though I may not have done a complete review and/or test"... > It's a very low vote of confidence. I wouldn't apply a patch that only > had Acked-bys. > > OTOH, Reviewed-by means, "I have reviewed the patch and believe it works > as described and meets project guidelines". Based on your review of V4, > pretty sure that's what you mean here. > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#L392 > > The distinction matters in practice because I have scripts to track > patches based on whether they've received Reviewed-bys or not. I'm > often running into cases where people are Acked-by'ing instead of > Reviewed-by'ing patches and then wondering why they haven't gotten > merged... I think Andreas is the major exponent of the idea that "acked-by" is stronger than "reviewed-by". Regardless, I think we should standardise on what we mean by both tags. (Alas the kernel docs are not entirely clear about acked-by, though the meaning of reviewed-by is certainly clear.) thanks -- PMM
