From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwDEq-00079d-Bg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:20:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwDEm-0008TM-0w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:20:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:62053) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwDEl-0008T7-Ru for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:20:23 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xk17so5540091obc.38 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: <51DAD155.3010106@suse.de> References: <1372930249-22916-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <87bo6ddu6k.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <51DAD155.3010106@suse.de> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:20:21 -0500 Message-ID: <8761wl3wp6.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , Peter Maydell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Durrant , Stefano Stabellini Andreas F=C3=A4rber writes: > Am 08.07.2013 16:10, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> (Just a nit and responding because this happens commonly). >>> >>> You probably mean Reviewed-by. Acked-by really means, "I am not the >>> maintainer of this area, I have not reviewed this patch, but I am >>> generally okay with the idea as best I can tell." >>=20 >> Don't you mean "I *am* the maintainer of this area" ? I've always >> assumed it means "as the maintainer I have a potential veto over >> this code change and I am explicitly not exercising it even though >> I may not have done a complete review and/or test"... > > I think Anthony was referring to: if I am the maintainer I don't usually > put tags on patches but pick them up and add my Signed-off-by. > (Possible exception: when only part of a series is good and you don't > feel like cherry-picking from it.) Right, it goes: 1) Acked-by: I haven't reviewed the code in detail but the general idea seems sane. 2) Reviewed-by: The general idea seems sane, and I have done a thorough review of the patch in question. 3) Signed-off-by: All of the above, plus I have ensured that the code is of good quality, does not break things, and the other things expected of a maintainer. This is considered to be a legally binding statement too based on the DCO so be aware of that and ensure you have the right approval to make such a statement. Semantics aside, let me be clear. If you want a patch to be merged, you need to do a Reviewed-by. Acked-by is not good enough to get something merged on its own. Regards, Anthony Liguori