From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Joshua Jensen <jjensen@workspacewhiz.com>,
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 02:40:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101001074039.GC6184@burratino> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101001072149.GA24171@kytes>
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Are all these tags useful?
Probably not. :)
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -264,12 +264,25 @@ the change to its true author (see (2) above).
> Also notice that a real name is used in the Signed-off-by: line. Please
> don't hide your real name.
>
> -Some people also put extra tags at the end.
> -
> -"Acked-by:" says that the patch was reviewed by the person who
> -is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts
> -to modify. "Tested-by:" says the patch was tested by the person
> -and found to have the desired effect.
> +Some extra tags you can use in the end along with their meanings are:
I like the old "Some people" phrasing; maybe we can get the same effect
(i.e., making it clear that you don't really have to use these) by saying
If you'd like, you can put extra tags at end:
> +1. "Reported-by:" is used to to credit someone who found the bug that
> + the patch attempts to fix.
Sensible.
> +2. "Acked-by:" says that the patch was acknowledged by the person who
> + is more familiar with the issues and the area the patch attempts to
> + modify.
Maybe liked or approved instead of acknowledged.
> +3. "Reviewed-by:", unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
> + reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
> + is ready for application. It is usually offered only after a
> + detailed review.
Yeah. Linux's Documentation/SubmittingPatches includes a nice
"reviewer's statement of oversight" by Jonathan Corbet, explaining
what exactly a reviewed-by is and is not supposed to signify.
> +4. "Tested-by:" is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
> + and found it to have the desired effect.
> +5. "Thanks-to:" is a more broad term used to credit someone who helped
> + with the patch in some way. The person perhaps gave an idea or
> + reviewed some part of the patch without awarding a "Reviewed-by".
> +6. "Based-on-patch-by:" is used to credit the person whose patch yours
> + is based on. The original patch was probably not considered for
> + inclusion due to several reasons.
These seem intuitive without explanation. I suppose Tested-by is
common enough and worth encouraging, though. In the end, a person can
put what they want. (e.g. the mysterious Whatevered-by:
http://lwn.net/Articles/399052/.)
Anyway, thanks for clearing this up.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-01 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-30 20:03 [PATCH v2 0/2] Eliminate cryptic "needs update" error message Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-09-30 20:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-09-30 20:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-10-01 4:57 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-01 5:37 ` Jonathan Nieder
2010-10-01 7:21 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-01 7:40 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2010-10-01 12:56 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-01 18:28 ` Jonathan Nieder
2010-10-01 20:22 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2010-10-02 4:32 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Eliminate cryptic "needs update" error message Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-02 4:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-02 4:37 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-02 4:37 ` [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: Document some extra tags used in commit messages Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-01 15:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] sh-setup: Write a new require_clean_work_tree function Junio C Hamano
2010-09-30 20:03 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] Porcelain scripts: Rewrite cryptic "needs update" error message Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-09-30 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-10-01 5:14 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2010-10-03 23:34 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101001074039.GC6184@burratino \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jjensen@workspacewhiz.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).