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

John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-01T10:53:19Z

> >> +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
> >> +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
> >> +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
> >> +
> >> +Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> >> +maintainer neither wrote, merged nor forwarded the patch themselves.
> >
> > Do we want to add verbiage saying that an Acked-By: is also useful when it
> > comes from somebody (likely the original reporter) who has actually tested the
> > patch?
>
> I'd rather see a Tested-By: for that.
>
> There is a difference between a maintainer ack and a tester ok.

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.