From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:24:36 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] commiting patches In-Reply-To: References: <20101230063005.15755osot9w5qwco@www.home.zuerker.org> <8739pfhtgk.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20101230212436.GA13863@merkur.ravnborg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:04:13PM +0100, Daniel Nystr?m wrote: > 2010/12/30 Peter Korsgaard : > > It's a big help when other developers help with the review and send > > their ack/nacks (thanks for this!), so those patches are often handled > > earlier than others. > > How do you prefer the ack/nack? Just a reply with "+1" in mail body? A > "Signed-off-by: name " mail body? or the whole patch resubmitted > with the SoB-line added? On linux-kernel the rules are mosre or less: You provide an ack by including the fomal ack line in a mail like this: Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg This makes it easy for the submitter to copy the line and you have it using your preferred spelling / mail address. There are people that does not use their regular mail address the acked-by lines. Sometimes submittes interprets mails like "+1" as Acked-by: - sometimes not. You use a sob line only if you are in the chain that _handle_ a patch. So you can follow the path of the patch by following the sob-lines. Lets consider a simple example. I create a patch for which I add my: Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg Then you pick it up - and potentially modifying it. To document that you are in the chain handling the patch you add your SOB line below mine. So it would now look like this: Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg Signed-off-by: Daniel Nystr?m And then Peter picks it up and when he applies it he add his SOB line as well. So the applied patch will look like this: Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg Signed-off-by: Daniel Nystr?m Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard Sam