Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:47:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>...
> > > -12) The canonical patch format
> > > +12) When to use Acked-by:
> > > +
> > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development
> > > +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> > 
> > The last part should be dropped: If "he/she was in the patch's delivery 
> > path", a Signed-off-by: tag is required.
> 
> I don't get you.  Isn't that already what the text says?
>...

/me blind

> +Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> +maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch themselves.
> +
> +Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
> +has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
> +mergers will sometimes manually covert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" into
> +an Acked-by:.
> +
> +Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. 
> +For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
> +one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
> +the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
> +When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
> +list archives.
> +
> +
> +14) The canonical patch format
>...

Looks good to me.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed