From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56193) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7oam-0004is-3v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:50:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7oac-00037h-2Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:50:15 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34085 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7oab-00035u-PC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:50:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4F60A20B.2020108@suse.de> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:50:03 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87wr6pwvas.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> <4F5F4B4F.3070003@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5F4B4F.3070003@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , =?UTF-8?B?TGx1?= =?UTF-8?B?w61zIFZpbGFub3Zh?= , Anthony Liguori , Stefano Stabellini Am 13.03.2012 14:27, schrieb Avi Kivity: > On 03/12/2012 08:18 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> >>> * Reviewed-by: Full Name >>> >>> A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an ap= propriate >>> modification without any remaining serious technical issues. Any in= terested >>> reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a = patch. >>> >>> >>> My understanding until now was that both Acked-by and Reviewed-by wer= e tags >>> reserved to people with privileges to write into the repository. >> >> Anybody should be allowed to give his own Acked-by or Reviewed-by, not >> just maintainers. Of course an acked-by from the maintainer of the are= a >> the patch is touching has a different weight. >=20 > To me, an Ack is reserved for people who have authority in an area, > either by being the formal maintainer of the subsystem, or by just bein= g > an expert in that area. An Acked-by short-circuit's the following exch= ange: >=20 > Author: submit patch P > Maintainer: P touches subsystem X, what do Expert E and sub-maintaine= r > M have to say about it? > E, M: looks okay >=20 > The acked-by allows the maintainer to skip the exchange. Of course > usually patches should go through a submaintainer tree, but sometimes > this is not feasible, either because there is no tree for that area, or > because the patch or patchset touches many subsystems. >=20 > So an ack should come from people who expect to be asked about the patc= h. The way I saw it, Acked-by means that the person asserts that the contents of the change is sensible, and when I use it I either tested it myself or am absolutely sure it doesn't break the build. Reviewed-by I use by comparison to assert that a patch reasonably conforms to our Coding guidelines, has an SoB and does nothing obviously stupid but that I did not bother to smoke-test on my system. What I have wondered is, is there any semantic difference between "Ack", "Acked", "ACK" and "Acked-by: name "? I.e., when someone replies with "Ack", should one document that as an Acked-by for a PULL? Similarly, should "Looks good." be translated to Reviewed-by or does it mean less? Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg