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

John Anthony Kazos Jr.
2007-06-02T00:37:47Z

> > I think the comment had to do with the concept that ACK/NAK implies
> > authority. If you're not the maintainer, it's rude to imply that you
> > are. Obvious, test reports (good or bad!) are always welcome.
>
> Well, I understand a test is a different thing, an experiment to
> see if the patch works or not, while ack/etc. is just opinion
> of someone who reads the patch without actually using it.
>
> I think ack/etc doesn't, in any way, imply being the maintainer,
> though it imply that the "acker" has actually read the code,
> understands it, and believes it's correct (or not, and why).
>
> If we want to differentiate between "authoritative" and
> "non-authoritative" opinions (and the name and email address
> aren't enough) then I think we need to state that explicite
> (perhaps something like "Acked-by: FIRST M. LAST <addr>, XXX
> subsystem maintainer" would suffice).

"Acked-by:" does not mean "I like this" but rather "I approve of this".
Someone who is not a maintainer is encouraged to speak of like and
dislike, in great detail, but has no position at all to approve or
disapprove of it going in.

If I put "Acked-by: John..." on a patch of any kind, even trivial, it
would look incredibly stupid, because I'm just some guy messing around
with the kernel. A tactful response to me doing that from any actual
kernel bigwig would be, "I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are not
part of the kernel patch flow." Similarly, a tactful response to me
NACKing a patch would be, "I appreciate your concern, but you are in no
position to remove a patch from the stream. Your comments will be
considered and implemented or countered by an actual maintainer."

This is appropriate.