public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com>,
	"Krzysztof Halasa" <khc@pm.waw.pl>,
	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@j-a-k-j.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:04:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070601130411.218009d5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070601130024.72163dc0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:00:24 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:37:54 -0500
> "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/1/07, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@j-a-k-j.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Indeed. Acked-by: implies authority, and only very few people should be
> > > > able to do it. Namely, the only person who can ACK a patch is a person who
> > > > could also NACK a patch and expect it to actually be dropped. If I think a
> > > > patch is bad, I can say so, but as I have no authority, my statement would
> > > > be taken on merit alone, whereas Linus or Andrew or such could just NACK
> > > > it and move on without having to spew a blurb every time.
> > >
> > > Everyone always has some authority so everyone can ack or nack any
> > > patch and I hope the action taken will always depend on merit
> > > rather than person, especially if it's a technical issue and not
> > > some style etc. thing.
> > > --
> > > Krzysztof Halasa
> > ---
> > 
> > This is a question worth answering - is it rude to ack/nak a patch if
> > you're not a maintainer or otherwise known-to-be-trusted, or is it OK
> > for anyone to express an opinion? Andrew's patch text seems to imply
> > that it's generally OK.
> > 
> 
> I think saying "ack" or "nack" is generally a bit rude, and not very
> useful.

err, make that "I think saying "nack" is generally a bit rude".  An "ack"
is inoffensive and useful.

But frankly, I don't trust a simple "ack" much at all.  It's the kernel
equivalent of "whoa, kewl!"

> It's better to just provide constructive, detailed technical comments and
> from that it becomes pretty obvious to all parties whether or not the patch
> has a future.

If the ack comes with some material of this nature then it becomes more believeable
that the Acker actually spent some time reading the code, and the ack becomes
more interesting.

It's quite common for experienced kernel developers to ack completely broken
patches.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-06-01 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-01  2:09 [patch 1/1] document Acked-by: akpm
2007-06-01  5:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-06-01  6:10   ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-06-01 10:53     ` John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-01 19:27       ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-06-01 19:37         ` Scott Preece
2007-06-01 20:00           ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-01 20:04             ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-06-02 13:34               ` debian developer
2007-06-02 17:13                 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-02 19:34                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-06-01 22:10           ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-06-01 22:17             ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-06-01 22:42               ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-06-02  0:37                 ` John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-02  0:56                   ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-06-02  1:36             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-06-01 17:27     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-06-01 17:35       ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-01 18:14 ` Dave Jones
2007-06-01 18:22   ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-01 18:28     ` Dave Jones
2007-06-02 17:17       ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-02 18:00         ` John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-02 19:07           ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-06-02 14:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-02 17:47   ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-02 17:55     ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-03  0:23     ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-06-03  2:57     ` Scott Preece
2007-06-03  4:06       ` Randy Dunlap
2007-06-03  4:15         ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-03 18:31           ` Scott Preece

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070601130411.218009d5.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jakj@j-a-k-j.com \
    --cc=khc@pm.waw.pl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sepreece@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox