On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 02:03:39 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Marek,
Hi Masahiro, > 2015-08-29 6:41 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <[email protected]>: > > On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 02:23:54 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> 2015-08-28 20:28 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <[email protected]>: > >> > On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 01:13:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> >> Device Tree really improves code maintainability and is now > >> >> available for SPL too. > >> >> > >> >> This is the state-of-the-art implementation in U-boot. > >> >> > >> >> The board files (platform data) are no longer needed. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> > >> > > >> > Acked-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > >> > >> Do you mean, Reviewed-by ? > >> > >> You do not have maintainership for any files this commit is touching. > > > > I meant acked-by, but I suspect the meaning of both acked-by and > > reviewed-by is a bit ambiguous. Is there some document which explains > > what acked-by and reviewed-by precisely mean ? > > Personally, I was very convinced with the last answer (Nov 14, 2012; > 7:34am) in this thread: > http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/acked-by-meaning-td551744.html > > > > If you want to refer to a more official one, > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Oh, they did formalize it here. I didn't know about that, thanks! > ------------->8------------ > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. > > [snip] > > Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire > patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an > Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates > acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. > --------------8<--------------- > > > I think this is the typical usage of Acked-by: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/508716/ > > > > In the kernel development, patch committers give Signed-off-by, > but it is not the custom in U-boot. We should certainly talk about the usage of SoB lines in U-Boot eventually. > So, I guess it makes sense that custodians issue Acked-by instead of > Signed-off-by. That I am not so sure about. But, feel free to add my R-B to this patch if you feel it's appropriate ;-) Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
