From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49332) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwD7Z-0003bU-Q4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:12:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwD7Y-0005oR-Ax for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:12:57 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:56456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwD7Y-0005oJ-6K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:12:56 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xk17so5640495obc.10 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 08:12:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <1372930249-22916-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <87bo6ddu6k.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:12:52 -0500 Message-ID: <878v1h3x1n.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Paul Durrant , Stefano Stabellini , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Peter Maydell writes: > 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." > > Don't you mean "I *am* the maintainer of this area" ? No. It's "this looks okay to me". A maintainer would be expected to do a more thorough review than just a first pass "this looks okay to me." > 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"... "As *a* maintainer". It's basically, "my opinion here matters so I'm going to voice my approval." It's not limited to maintainers though. >> It's a very low vote of confidence. I wouldn't apply a patch that only >> had Acked-bys. >> >> OTOH, Reviewed-by means, "I have reviewed the patch and believe it works >> as described and meets project guidelines". Based on your review of V4, >> pretty sure that's what you mean here. >> >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#L392 >> >> The distinction matters in practice because I have scripts to track >> patches based on whether they've received Reviewed-bys or not. I'm >> often running into cases where people are Acked-by'ing instead of >> Reviewed-by'ing patches and then wondering why they haven't gotten >> merged... > > I think Andreas is the major exponent of the idea that "acked-by" > is stronger than "reviewed-by". Regardless, I think we should > standardise on what we mean by both tags. (Alas the kernel docs > are not entirely clear about acked-by, though the meaning of > reviewed-by is certainly clear.) That's why I referred to them. They seem clear to me. Suggestions for improvement are welcome of course :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > > thanks > -- PMM