> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +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: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > What, no Tested-by: ?
> >
> >Heh. Indeed. I think there's room for both fwiw.
>
> Too verbose. Suggest a typedef.
>
> Signed-off-and-tested-by: Foo J. Bar <addy@corps>
Signed-off-by: should imply Tested-by:, with the exception of the final
Signed-off-by: when it's merged into a tree. Tested-by:, if it really is
necessary or useful, should be reserved for only those who test something
but weren't involved in its development. Adding it to the tag is
unnecessary unless somebody thinks there's a serious problem with untested
patches being introduced by first-hand maintainers that a forced reminder
would remedy.
-
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]
