From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59828)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1S7ojR-0000cj-Q1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:59:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1S7oj2-0004uM-Ry
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:59:13 -0400
Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:52120)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1S7oj2-0004rz-Kh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:58:48 -0400
Received: by eeit10 with SMTP id t10so1017983eei.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F60A292.1060307@codemonkey.ws>
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>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA-w3vD-zqM3r4nuV5JRV3srAcEa7Usp64B3MReHfmX=gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, =?UTF-8?Q?Llu=C3=ADs_Vilanova?= <vilanova@ac.upc.edu>

On 14 March 2012 13:52, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 08:50 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber 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. =C2=A0You shouldn't infe=
r 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 ac=
ker
# has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patc=
h
# mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me=
"
# into an Acked-by:.

-- PMM