From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43667) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwCkR-0007Ht-VG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:49:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwCkO-00068Y-N4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:49:03 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34443 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwCkO-00068M-Ck for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:49:00 -0400 Message-ID: <51DAD155.3010106@suse.de> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:48:53 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1372930249-22916-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <87bo6ddu6k.fsf@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Paul Durrant , Stefano Stabellini , Anthony Liguori Am 08.07.2013 16:10, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> (Just a nit and responding because this happens commonly). >> >> You probably mean Reviewed-by. Acked-by really means, "I am not the >> maintainer of this area, I have not reviewed this patch, but I am >> generally okay with the idea as best I can tell." >=20 > Don't you mean "I *am* the maintainer of this area" ? I've always > assumed it means "as the maintainer I have a potential veto over > this code change and I am explicitly not exercising it even though > I may not have done a complete review and/or test"... I think Anthony was referring to: if I am the maintainer I don't usually put tags on patches but pick them up and add my Signed-off-by. (Possible exception: when only part of a series is good and you don't feel like cherry-picking from it.) Also we have an increasing number of series (CPUState, PCI, IOMMU) that touch things across the tree with more than one maintainer involved, where in my case I'm happy about getting Acked-bys at all. :) >> It's a very low vote of confidence. I wouldn't apply a patch that onl= y >> had Acked-bys. >> >> OTOH, Reviewed-by means, "I have reviewed the patch and believe it wor= ks >> as described and meets project guidelines". Based on your review of V= 4, >> pretty sure that's what you mean here. >> >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/Submitting= Patches#L392 >> >> The distinction matters in practice because I have scripts to track >> patches based on whether they've received Reviewed-bys or not. I'm >> often running into cases where people are Acked-by'ing instead of >> Reviewed-by'ing patches and then wondering why they haven't gotten >> merged... >=20 > I think Andreas is the major exponent of the idea that "acked-by" > is stronger than "reviewed-by". Regardless, I think we should > standardise on what we mean by both tags. (Alas the kernel docs > are not entirely clear about acked-by, though the meaning of > reviewed-by is certainly clear.) Exponent? I am not advocating it's "stronger". However I believe that they do express different things - ack may express that the patch has been looked at and possibly tested but may contain stylistic or convention nits, whereas Reviewed-by says the code looks fine but is not guaranteed to build on the supported platforms. Adding a Reviewed-by on an obvious spelling fix so that it gets picked up already feels silly to me, and adding two tags (Reviewed-by+Tested-by or Acked-by+Reviewed-by+Tested-by) even more so. We could certainly use some clear guidance on the Wiki. Volunteers? Cheers, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg