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

Andrew Morton
2007-06-02T17:47:31Z

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >
> > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by
> > +++ a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> > @@ -328,7 +328,20 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna
> > point out some special detail about the sign-off.
> >
> >
> > -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?

> > +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.
>
> "merged" seems to be superfluous if you also mention "forwarded".

OK

> > +13) The canonical patch format
> >
> > The canonical patch subject line is:
>
> Please mention explicitely whether Acked-by: this now considered a
> formal tag like Signed-off-by:

OK.

> IOW, if a maintainer says "fine with me", can I translate this to an
> Acked-by: line, or do I now have to ask for an explicit Acked-by: line?

I do that often. It's useful information. If person X sends an fbdev
patch and Tony says "whoa, neat" and I send the patch to Linus then Linus could
well think "wtf, Andrew doesn't know anything about fbdev". So I do s/whoa
neat/Acked-by:/ to tell the world that someone who knows something has
looked at the change.

> Oh, and that's not a theoretical question, this is a result of a recent
> flamewar^Wdiscussion on this list...

yeah, well, what isn't ;)

The person whose Acked-by: I added will get a copy of the added-to-mm email
so if they didn't want that acked-by added then they get a chance to remove
it again.

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:

Acked-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by Documentation/SubmittingPatches
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by
+++ a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -340,8 +340,32 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna
point out some special detail about the sign-off.

+13) When to use Acked-by:

-13) The canonical patch format
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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

The canonical patch subject line is:

_