[Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers)

[John W. Linville]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 18:48 +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: 
> > Also long-overdue is a clarification on exactly what "Acked-by" means.
> > Right now it is being used for at least two distinct and
> > mutually-incompatible purposes:
> > 
> > 1. A maintainer A for code affected by a patch, who is distinct from a
> > maintainer B queuing a patch, has reviewed the patch and has cleared it as
> > being OK for maintainer B to send upstream
> > 
> > 2. A casual review has been done by someone who is not a maintainer for
> > the code in question
> > 
> > What I would propose is to have the first use replaced by a new tag, 
> > "Maintainer-acked-by:", and the second use abolished, along with 
> > "Acked-by:", and replaced by "Reviewed-by:".
> 
> Agreed, "Acked-by" is ambiguous and should be dis-ambiguated.
> "Reviewed-by:" is too much of a barrier for people to feel comfortable
> using.  Just as the "Maintainer-acked-by:" would imply a subset of the
> patch related to the subsystem, "Reviewed-by" needs something similar to
> limit its scope.

I hate to bikeshed this, but "Maintainer-acked-by" seems too long to type...

-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville at tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.