Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.

Carlos O'Donell
2017-10-19T17:06:51Z

On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
>> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose. ;-/
>>
>> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
>> interested have a convenient handle to use,
>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.
>
> That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers.
> But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely
> (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very
> limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set
> of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit). It doesn't cover
> reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate
> to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a
> review approving the entirety of a patch as posted. If the aim is credit,
> a substantially different specification is needed.

This is the purpose of Acked-by: ...

Which we could also include.

linux/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
...

Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
list archives.

...

--
Cheers,
Carlos.