From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93487B50 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pokefinder.org (sauhun.de [88.99.104.3]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2507E63D for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:26:18 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Message-ID: <20190716212618.GB6679@kunai> References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190708115949.GC1050@kunai> <20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan> <20190715170045.GB3068@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190715170045.GB3068@mit.edu> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Looking at Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst: > >=20 > > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > > inclusion into the kernel. > >=20 > > - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correct= ness; > > see the reviewer's statement in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitt= ing-patches.rst ` > > for more detail. > >=20 > > I guess the descriptions are already enough to describe those > > tags. >=20 > I'd suggest changing the text to read: >=20 > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by the maintainer or > reviewer of the the relevant code that the patch is > appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. This sounds a tad too strict for me, yet I am not into bike-shedding and will step aside if more people prefer this phrasing... > That complaint isn't going to change how *I* interpret or decide to > include Acked-by's, but if we have general agreement on the > expectations Maintainers should have (and my expectations match > yours), then perhaps we can adjust the documentation to make it more > clear. =2E.. because I fully agree to this. It is one of the reasons I started this thread. Working on a general agreement. Oh, and increase awareness that Acks and Revs can be rejected, of course. --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAl0uQPoACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZN3xAAqF0sc3GbvPRVfykrMdoWmolXiMtwavfugq7uOpccF4WxyVM2F2zQd22J +tgAnZl3jaotUoETKWICsYyOVtBDyiN73qsAgq4Mw+52GZXZLRG5SHCSyd2h5ZPp yTu6aKFmjcPJ6UcFYkgCUiKmG5CLwl5pyWMT9KrfXbP2xZI9n2vZc7f1u81DdkZ5 TeVyNFgcYT0cGZnAy5fU4+4gr6a2RZyzWULDMx/XduiGwpuHNPSxOUaX1i4e5W3V BTZrhMwciJIeh02CFZOUc2hq7yeX4mcmujaa9hPYLl/bxKbCJHZmiiMfCmZvgrjD saQlD0ljbTHNrNy1kYYw3ioezGgFICKpcUKG3BgLfNbtZJzTcmvMQ7jxANIBDMUY VZaR/eyrS26SrpMywwku/MHYXABg11+zs+DyQ6oNmyDLgfAKHRqL8AAFb40fYx80 1AbTuyfbm73l+Wrvn33Ym4ttxvope/uMsmDykqW9frfEy5o7kjhkZhvLrDvZmzi9 CB/dAh/9beImAp8cQJF/GBm2IWDyNoZo76zFxHVI8/QPSVGin7kPajbzj8RSSYm0 J3XYxyIDQNh5PFS9GZ3FAC91skWUP8bNo19ZZF4Zama/JoSoMgeoDBrgSl9JDJ75 BaXHOOkQ109eq/7YfrY0CBS7ICuG2Fd4LGVpPAWuH7pA0ZF1HfQ= =HFdE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5--