Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 08.07.2013 16:10, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> 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"... > > I think Anthony was referring to: if I am the maintainer I don't usually > put tags on patches but pick them up and add my Signed-off-by. > (Possible exception: when only part of a series is good and you don't > feel like cherry-picking from it.)
Right, it goes: 1) Acked-by: I haven't reviewed the code in detail but the general idea seems sane. 2) Reviewed-by: The general idea seems sane, and I have done a thorough review of the patch in question. 3) Signed-off-by: All of the above, plus I have ensured that the code is of good quality, does not break things, and the other things expected of a maintainer. This is considered to be a legally binding statement too based on the DCO so be aware of that and ensure you have the right approval to make such a statement. Semantics aside, let me be clear. If you want a patch to be merged, you need to do a Reviewed-by. Acked-by is not good enough to get something merged on its own. Regards, Anthony Liguori
