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

Randy Dunlap
2007-06-03T04:09:41Z

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 would like to say "no such word," but I googled it and found lots of
references to it, most of which say "sub-standard," "nonstandard,"
"mythical," "vulgar," or "colloq." But my search was not exhaustive.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***