Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:10:42 PDT, "H. Peter Anvin" said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > 
> >> +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
> >> +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
> >> +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
> >> +
> >> +Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> >> +maintainer neither wrote, merged nor forwarded the patch themselves.
> > 
> > Do we want to add verbiage saying that an Acked-By: is also useful when it
> > comes from somebody (likely the original reporter) who has actually tested the
> > patch?
> 
> I'd rather see a Tested-By: for that.
> 
> There is a difference between a maintainer ack and a tester ok.

OK by me.  Half the time when a -mm breaks for me, it's an obvious one-liner
I can S-o-b: myself, the other half the time somebody else has a fix that
I keep thinking I should stick *something* on once I confirm it's fixed.

Do Linus/Andrew/major maintainers want Tested-By:'s for patches?

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature