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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 05:29:21 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2014 23:26:38 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> > > Where as, a maintainer could pass in an "Approved-by" which means "Yes,
> > > I approve this change and it may go through another tree instead of
> > > mine".
> > 
> > That's what an ACK means, though, isn't it?
> 
> I would argue that it means that as well as other meanings.
> 
> > 
> > To me, really, Acked-by from a non-maintainer is something like a "+1" in G+.
> > 
> > I would prefer the new tag to suggest that meaning more directly.  Something
> > like "Fine-by", maybe?
> 
> I actually disagree with this analysis. I like to see Acked-by from
> those that may not be the maintainer, but have some stake in the change
> that is being made. A Acked-by from a random person that I don't know
> is more of a "+1" check, which I agree is useless and I don't even
> bother adding them.
> 
> Thus, my point is to distinguish between a "Acked-by" that comes from
> someone that has a stake in the code and approves the change (which to
> me is the real meaning of Acked-by) and a stronger "Approved-by" which
> comes from a maintainer that is stating that they are OK with you
> pushing it through your tree even though it touches their code.
> 
> I'm not saying people have to use "Approved-by", but I would like to be
> able to us it myself when people make a change in my code and I would
> like to let the maintainer of the tree it is going in to know they have
> my OK to pull it.
> 
> I ask for Acked-bys from people if they can't give me a Reviewed-by
> but they still have a stake in the code that is being modified, and I
> want to know it's still OK with them. But they are not a maintainer
> telling me it's OK to take their code into my tree.

That makes sense.

Rafael