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

Scott Preece
2007-06-03T18:31:40Z

On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:06:14 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:57:41 -0700 Scott Preece wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Change "implies" to "indicates" - it's an explicit statement, not an
> > > implication.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > > +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> > > > +
> > > > +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 contributed to nor forwarded the patch themselves.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This using plural pronouns for indefinite gender leaves one in vague
> > > territory, but I think "themself" would be better than "themselves,
> > > since "maintainer" is singular.
> >
> > ugh. :(
> > not-acked-by: /me
> >
>
> I just deleted it ;)
>
> "neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch."
>
---

Wise as usual - much better!

scott