From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618A01C860B; Sat, 29 Nov 2025 15:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764430267; cv=none; b=VGph3R+lxPAgg3powDRWAjRc/d+zWHw3FmU1KeRQGPVehLN1qiLCxVVAOs6IaCzcraXzbAQtMkgh0XZN9ppS3lPUjKJN1aVX84BsTjlhtl0Y69qkM1oiLhfPK1e7xcCJqSoa8SMkYe+UtAHjbx9WHMOFchKryy7MfvRoCJhWMUk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764430267; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+NhlOVI3u+C2SR14ds92UPn6IECPV6DLuMjYK4xu1Is=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YN/hSf29bHqguQYaFzOFE979A+2ALImE2i7z9iYxTM4WY6FGU6vOZxQyo2BHbRx1d2teXQj2RYWfjbDI7EpYS8YITG+lUijG4LbUNlhskPFL6SeVTRdi/4AikpOzYvvw0ibcF8TaxOu1pncv/h4ZCZNqtZ4bLJ1fa4CAHHr/tDU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=LcANbe9R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="LcANbe9R" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 6CA81406FB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1764430265; bh=LwFr92VqBu4QHZ4t343hjS6PLscJ0UEs4gNANVhHGzs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LcANbe9RolGh8ZlUOVssoFOQTDsx+7pABCBhy8pMB9oFrzT5bOD8JEhyBxftRZvBY Jgy2QDiFnI89pJ58BbvKsO8d19ix8cU/5YjX8JD+l7ayuqEM9xoDoe95w/Mhm6AmIx +wVKMut1lGXe0f7tzdO2s2dmVqb/etxKtAK/jrMc1hGlYXHXgUCc523Ifrxk2b2Wjl csg374wRZ4aNv/W1NpTxgyI+yU+pjG9SgExyPDtyjpcavkgvNvA5U+6c5bnbn3T3vz lw5V+9nTDjbOcYyTfrIw07wgKqCl6Qkt1kkB0TVwZZhazhUWx+udglDtoCkimSbieb BGD+RnKk/MHGg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CA81406FB; Sat, 29 Nov 2025 15:31:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify that removal of Acks needs explanation too In-Reply-To: <20251126081905.7684-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20251126081905.7684-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 08:31:04 -0700 Message-ID: <874iqcrh3b.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Krzysztof Kozlowski writes: > The paragraph mentions only removal of Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags as > action needing mentioning in patch changelog, so some developers treat > it too literally. Acks, as a weaker form of review/approval, should > rarely be removed, but if that happens it should be explained as well. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > --- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index 910e8fc9e3c8..9a509f1a6873 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -592,8 +592,9 @@ Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester > or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending > next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following > version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed. > -Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned > -in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator). > +Usually removal of someone's Acked-by, Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be > +mentioned in the patch changelog with an explanation (after the '---' > +separator). Applied, thanks. jon