On 10/05/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:22:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> I thought it was just an informal tag to mark which people did agree with
>> the patch (and the line between your "Makes good sense to me." and a "Feel
>> free to add my ACK to this" is really thin).
>
> No, the line is easy and obvious: if there is any doubt, DO NOT ASSUME.
>
> If they do not explicitly ACK it, then do not presume to speak for them.
There is no doubt that Jesper did explicitly ACK the patch.
We are ONLY discussing whether his informal ACK can be translated into
an "Acked-by:" line.
Right. The patch is fine. What I said when I commented on it was an
ACK, that's not being debated.
I just thought that Acked-by: was considered a lot more formal and was
surprised to see that line with my name on the patch. But I've since
checked up on that assumption and I can't find anything that states
that it is considered as formal as I thought it was, so the mistake is
all mine and what you did is fine.
If Acked-by: should be made more formal or not is a different discussion.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
