> >> +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.
Indeed. Acked-by: implies authority, and only very few people should be
able to do it. Namely, the only person who can ACK a patch is a person who
could also NACK a patch and expect it to actually be dropped. If I think a
patch is bad, I can say so, but as I have no authority, my statement would
be taken on merit alone, whereas Linus or Andrew or such could just NACK
it and move on without having to spew a blurb every time.
-
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]
