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

Scott Preece
2007-06-03T02:57:51Z

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.

---
> +
> +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
---

"covert" -> "convert"

---
> +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: