From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:49:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] staging: comedi: pcl812: missing break statement
Message-Id: <20130821124924.GA4713@mwanda>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20130821082804.GC5240@elgon.mountain>
In-Reply-To: <20130821082804.GC5240@elgon.mountain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:35:22PM +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> 
> Acked-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
> Reviewed-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
> 
> (whichever is appropriate)

To me Acked-by is more emphatic.  Since you're the maintainer it's
appropriate.  I normally use "Reviewed-by" because I don't have the
authority to approve anything.  Also if it's a bug fix that I
approve of or if I previously complained about the patch then I'll
use Acked-by.

I don't know how other people do it.  :P

regards,
dan carpenter