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

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:46 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa said:
> "Scott Preece" <sepreece@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > This is a question worth answering - is it rude to ack/nak a patch if
> > you're not a maintainer or otherwise known-to-be-trusted, or is it OK
> > for anyone to express an opinion? Andrew's patch text seems to imply
> > that it's generally OK.
> 
> Every pair of eyes (or a single one) looking at the patch in question
> is a good thing. I can't imagine why would one want to look at the
> code if he/she can't ack or nak or otherwise comment it.

I'd be the *first* to admit that my kernel-foo isn't perfect, and sometimes I'm
right and sometimes I'm wrong when I review somebody else's code.  I certainly
*hope* that nobody's taking my review as anything more authoritative than "an
actual maintainer might want to look at this".

On the other hand, we don't need a Foo-By: tag for "or otherwise comment".

Phrased differently, if I haven't stuck a "Signed-off-by:" or "Tested-By:"
on it, I'm by default only commenting.  The code submitter can decide I'm right
and fix and resubmit, the maintainer can decide I'm right and toss a NAK. Or
they can both decide I'm full of it and hit the Delete key..

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature