On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:33:42AM +0100, Dirk Behme wrote: > > Caglar Akyuz wrote: > > >5) Do you think acking or replying with "reviewed by:" statements to the > >submitted patches is a good practice or not? I'm not asking for myself > >of course. > > I'm not so familiar with "reviewed by:". What do people think? > > We have "reviewed by:" in e.g. > > http://source.mvista.com/git/?p=linux-davinci-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=7c7e92a9268965e08bba853ecdb94fa55e886741 > > from Alan Cox, so it can't be wrong at all ;) > > But Documentation/SubmittingPatches tells us: > > -- cut -- > ... > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the > acker > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" > into an Acked-by:. > ... > -- cut -- > > So I think acking is the more official way and good practice. > "reviewed by:" isn't mentioned anywhere in kernel documentation.
It's relatively new, from the 2007 Kernel Summit I believe: <http://lwn.net/Articles/248388/> <http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Introducing_Reviewed-by_Tags> <http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Defining_the_Reviewed-by_Tag> I don't follow LKML so I don't know if it's actually being adopted, but if it is then I'd say davinci-linux should adopt it as well. Tom -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | \ / | Email to user 'CTZ001' X Against HTML | at 'email.mot.com' / \ in e-mail & news | _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
