From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751484Ab2KLCsK (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:48:10 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:53920 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711Ab2KLCsJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:48:09 -0500 Message-ID: <50A07169.6090201@infradead.org> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:47:53 -0800 From: Randy Dunlap User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110323 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thiago Farina CC: linux list Subject: Re: acked-by meaning References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/11/2012 05:40 PM, Thiago Farina wrote: > Hi, > > What is the meaning of 'Acked-by:' line? Is the same of LGTM? How it > differs from 'Reviewed-by:'? Reviewed-by: is stronger than Acked-by:. If someone replies with Reviewed-by, they also accept some responsibility for fixing any problems that the patch might introduce after it is merged. Acked-by just means agreement with the patch. > If someone acks a patch (can anybody acks or just the maintainer?), > does it mean that he will also apply the patch to his tree? Anybody can reply to a patch with Acked-by. No, it doesn't mean that the replying/acking person will apply the patch to any tree. Have you read what Documentation/SubmittingPatches and Documentation/development-process/5.Posting and 6.Followthrough say about Acked-by? -- ~Randy