From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: Understanding of Acked-By Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20170127101304.GA69896@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <2358632.GCFl4gnRC2@xps13> <7fb35576-ba10-019a-a6ba-e38418e03848@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Van Haaren, Harry" , dev@dpdk.org, "Yigit, Ferruh" , Igor Ryzhov , Steve Shin To: Shreyansh Jain Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6DB201 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:13:08 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7fb35576-ba10-019a-a6ba-e38418e03848@nxp.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:48:06PM +0530, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > On Wednesday 25 January 2017 08:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2017-01-25 13:53, Van Haaren, Harry: > > > There was an idea (from Thomas) to better document the Acked-by and Reviewed-By in the above thread, which I think is worth doing to make the process clearer. I'll kick off a thread*, and offer to submit a patch for the documentation when a consensus is reached. > > > > > > > > > The question that needs to be addressed is "What is the most powerful signoff to add as somebody who checked a patch?" > > > > I do not see the benefit of knowing the most powerful. > > Anyway, the most powerful tags are done by trusted people. > > And people are trusted after delivering good reviews or patches ;) > > > > The question should be "How to use the tags?" > > > > > The documentation mentions Acked, Reviewed, and Tested by[1], as signoffs that can be commented on patches. The Review Process[2] section mentions Reviewed and Tested by, but nowhere specifically states what any of these indicate. > > > > > > Offered below is my current understanding of the Acked-by; Reviewed-by; and Tested-by tags, in order of least-powerful first: > > > > > > > > > 3) Tested-by: (least powerful) > > > - Indicates having passed testing of functionality, and works as expected for Tester > > > - Does NOT include full code review (instead use Reviewed by) > > > - Does NOT indicate that the Tester understands architecture (instead use Acked by) > > > > > > > > > 2) Reviewed-by: > > > - Indicates having passed code-review, checkpatch and compilation testing by Reviewer > > > > Compilation testing is done by the CI. > > The reviewer must just check the results. > > > > > - Does NOT include full testing of functionality (instead use Tested-by) > > > - Does NOT indicate that the Reviewer understands architecture (instead use Acked by) > > > > I disagree here. > > The reviewer must understand the impacts of the patch. > > That's why a Reviewed-by tag is really strong. > > From what I understand, 'Reviewed-by' and 'Acked-by' are the other way > around. > - Acked-by is intent that 'I agree with change'. > - Reviewed-by is 'I vouch for the changes' either through review or > testing or both. > Other way round in what way - compared to proposed by Harry or by Thomas? Which do you view as the stronger indication that the patch is ok? Regards, /Bruce