On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT, [email protected] 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?
Attachment:
pgphWsQ4NQFMq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] sparsemem: Shut up unused symbol compiler warnings.
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] sparsemem: Shut up unused symbol compiler warnings.
- Previous by thread: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
- Index(es):
 |