Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:00:00PM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > > > >  > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:
> > > > >  > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > > >  > +
> > > > >  > +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
> > > > >  > +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
> > > > >  > +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Acked-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > What, no Tested-by: ?
> > >
> > >Heh. Indeed.  I think there's room for both fwiw.
> > 
> > Too verbose. Suggest a typedef.
> > 
> > 	Signed-off-and-tested-by: Foo J. Bar <addy@corps>
> 
> Signed-off-by: should imply Tested-by:, with the exception of the final 
> Signed-off-by: when it's merged into a tree.
Subsystem maintainers cannot test each and every submission.
Sometimes due to lack of HW at other times simply due to lack of time.

Signed-off-by is exactly one thing - a way to show the path
a patch take. Then people on the path may have done more or less review/test.

Lot's of people confuses signed-of-by with acked-by btw - but this is waht this
patch should correct.

	Sam