Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 23:21 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> people in the patch
>> forwarding chain should only add this tag if the reviewer sent it
>> explicitly in his response. Unlike with Acked-by and Tested-by, we must
>> not guess whether a reviewer wants to have his Reviewed-by added.
>
> In that case the reviewer should be made part of the forwarding chain,
> and it should be made clear to whoever is upstream that this is a patch
> that has not been modified since it was reviewed.
It's more comfortable for the reviewer to send a mail reply with the tag.
But modifications after review are a problem either way. (If the
modifications are minor, add a description below the Reviewed-by and
sign off below that additional description. If they are major, drop the
Reviewed-by. However, a follow-up patch instead of modifying the
reviewed patch should be considered and may be suitable in many cases,
since a patch which passed review should already be fine for commit on
its own.)
>> > Being sure of something and making guarantees are different things.
>
> To a lawyer, yes. To everyone else, no, and the GPL already tells you
> that you are given no warranties.
OK.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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]
