[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:10:49 +0100

On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> 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" ? 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"...

> 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.)

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]