From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753342AbXJHUeR (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:34:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751575AbXJHUeB (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:34:01 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:49606 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751536AbXJHUeA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:34:00 -0400 Message-ID: <470A9422.4050400@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:33:38 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Engelhardt CC: Sam Ravnborg , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight References: <25555.1191864285@lwn.net> <20071008173706.GA12026@uranus.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> Acked-by: >> Tested-by: > > * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the > patch. > >> Reviewed-by: > > * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a > look at it in depth > Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to the maintainer. None of these are indicative of the authority of the person acking, reviewing, testing, or nacking. That's only as good as the trust in the person signing. -hpa