From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56591) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7ocv-0006ke-Vq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:52:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7ocq-0003PI-Ar for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:52:29 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:33801) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7ocq-0003P3-6U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:52:24 -0400 Received: by yenr5 with SMTP id r5so2083264yen.4 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F60A292.1060307@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:52:18 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87wr6pwvas.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> <4F5F4B4F.3070003@redhat.com> <4F60A20B.2020108@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <4F60A20B.2020108@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TGx1w61zIFZpbGFub3Zh?= , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Avi Kivity , Stefano Stabellini On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > 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 appropriate >>>> modification without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested >>>> 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 were 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 area >>> the patch is touching has a different weight. >> >> 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 being >> an expert in that area. An Acked-by short-circuit's the following exchange: >> >> Author: submit patch P >> Maintainer: P touches subsystem X, what do Expert E and sub-maintainer >> M have to say about it? >> E, M: looks okay >> >> 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. >> >> So an ack should come from people who expect to be asked about the patch. > > 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? No, Acked-by: name is a formal statement. You shouldn't infer an Acked-by IMHO. FWIW, you can always ask for an actual Acked-by if someone responds with just Ack. > > Similarly, should "Looks good." be translated to Reviewed-by or does it > mean less? It means less. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Andreas >