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

John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-02T18:00:27Z

> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +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: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > What, no Tested-by: ?
> >
> >Heh. Indeed. I think there's room for both fwiw.
>
> Too verbose. Suggest a typedef.
>
> Signed-off-and-tested-by: Foo J. Bar <addy@corps>

Signed-off-by: should imply Tested-by:, with the exception of the final
Signed-off-by: when it's merged into a tree. Tested-by:, if it really is
necessary or useful, should be reserved for only those who test something
but weren't involved in its development. Adding it to the tag is
unnecessary unless somebody thinks there's a serious problem with untested
patches being introduced by first-hand maintainers that a forced reminder
would remedy.