Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

Hi Neil.
> 
>    From:        The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
>                 Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
> 
>                 Purpose: to give credit to authors
The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this
in the changelog's.
I know some tools require this format but that's something else.

> > +
> > +Signed-off-by:  A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
> > +		patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
> > +		to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
> > +		terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.  See
> > +		the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
> > +		Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
> > +		Signed-off-by.
> 
>                 Purpose: to allow subsequent review of the originality of 
>                 the contribution should copyright questions arise.

We often use s-o-b to docuemnt the path a patch took from origin (the
top-most s-o-b) to tree apply (lowest s-o-b).
This is IIUC part of the intended behaviour of s-o-b but it is not
clear from the above text.


> > +
> > +Acked-by:	The person named (who should be an active developer in the
> > +		area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
> > +		no objection to its inclusion.  An Acked-by tag does not
> > +		imply any involvement in the development of the patch or
> > +		that a detailed review was done.
> 
>                 Purpose:  to inform upstream aggregators that
> 		consensus was achieved for the change.  This is
> 		particularly relevant for changes that affect multiple
> 		Maintenance Domains.
> 
consensus seems too strong a wording here. consensus imply more than one
that agree on the patch where I often see people give their "Acked-by:" by
simple changelog reading.
So Acked-by: is not used like documented today.

	Sam