From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758864AbXJKVWa (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754721AbXJKVWX (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:23 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:40182 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753831AbXJKVWW (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:22 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <470E93D3.5050707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:21:23 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070807 SeaMonkey/1.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Trond Myklebust CC: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/patch-tags v3 References: <30616.1192133818@lwn.net> <1192135811.7899.25.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1192135811.7899.25.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > Does 'Reviewed-by' also imply 'Signed-off-by'? Does a technical review include a review of licensing and copyright issues? (It doesn't seem to be a big issue though if the submitter signed off on it, like he should.) > In other words, who is actually supposed to add this tag? > > Is it the reviewer who passes on an officially 'reviewed' patch to the > maintainer, or is it the patch author him/herself who is responsible for > soliciting reviews and adding the tag? Anybody in the patch forwarding chain (author, maintainers... usually the latter) can add Acked-by and Tested-by, based on incoming feedback. The feedback may have explicitly stated an Acked-by or Tested-by or may have said something equivalent. (In case of Tested-by, an appropriate description of how was tested should have been sent. An explicit Tested-by from the tester himself is moot then.) Reviewed-by is a different beast. If Jon's definition of Reviewed-by (or another definition) is "officially" adopted, people in the patch forwarding chain should only add this tag if the reviewer sent it explicitly in his response. Unlike with Acked-by and Tested-by, we must not guess whether a reviewer wants to have his Reviewed-by added. [...] >> + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission, >> + I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to >> + the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its >> + inclusion. >> + >> + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not >> + (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees >> + that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any >> + given situation. > > I'm confused about how to reconcile (c) and (d) here. If you are not > sure about whether or not the patch will achieve its stated purpose, why > would you be arguing that it is a worthwhile modification? Being sure of something and making guarantees are different things. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =-=- -=-== http://arcgraph.de/sr/