On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > 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. > > I don't think that is a good idea to mix up DCO with reviewing patches. > In fact in the Linux community I think that it's pretty clear that > Signed-off-by doesn't mean anything other than "at least a portion of > the changes have been done by me and I am the Copyright owner of them". > > For example Alice writes a patch and goes away, Bob takes it, rewrites > most of it and then sends it upstream. The patch has Alice and Bob > Signed-off-by but Alice might not even read Bob's patch.
I forgot to add: Anybody that touch the patch adds his own Signed-off-by. Even applying a patch manually to a tree counts, that's why maintainers add Signed-off-by.
