From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57805)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S7p1C-000799-52
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:17:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S7p0u-00036M-Af
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:17:33 -0400
Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:57111)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1S7p0u-00035g-6A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:17:16 -0400
Received: by ghrr14 with SMTP id r14so2121467ghr.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F60A866.2050304@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:17:10 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203121648210.923@kaball-desktop>
	<87wr6pwvas.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1203121816540.923@kaball-desktop>
	<4F5F4B4F.3070003@redhat.com> <4F60A20B.2020108@suse.de>
	<4F60A292.1060307@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAFEAcA-w3vD-zqM3r4nuV5JRV3srAcEa7Usp64B3MReHfmX=gQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-w3vD-zqM3r4nuV5JRV3srAcEa7Usp64B3MReHfmX=gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TGx1w61zIFZpbGFubw==?= =?UTF-8?B?dmE=?= <vilanova@ac.upc.edu>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVh?= =?UTF-8?B?cyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

On 03/14/2012 08:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 March 2012 13:52, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> What I have wondered is, is there any semantic difference between "Ack",
>>> "Acked", "ACK" and "Acked-by: name<email>"? I.e., when someone replies
>>> with "Ack", should one document that as an Acked-by for a PULL?
>>
>>
>> No, Acked-by: name<email>  is a formal statement.  You shouldn't infer an
>> Acked-by IMHO.
>
> This is in contradiction to the kernel docs we reference, which say:
> # Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
> # has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
> # mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
> # into an Acked-by:.

Oh, I guess I stand corrected.  It would certainly surprise me if someone added 
my Acked-by without asking me but maybe this is just American politeness...

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> -- PMM
>