It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It
seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
either ready to go in or pretty close.
Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools
maintainer I wouldn't want to see some of the tools patches in
with just an ack, but without any review.
I'm somewhat confused at this point.
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. It is a
record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated
acceptance.
Does this imply this is already reviewed?
No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely
means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in.
Sorry I'm trying to dig into this.
If nobody would like to take a look at this, so isn't this the
associated maintainer's responsibility to review finally? In this case
isn't Acked-by fine enough?
Or you still want to us add two lines explicitly,
Reviewed-by: A
Acked-by: A
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
