From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758236AbXJKWMl (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:12:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756333AbXJKWMN (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:12:13 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:41313 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754915AbXJKWMJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:12:09 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <470E9F92.1030604@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:11:30 +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> <470E93D3.5050707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <1192139467.7899.55.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1192139467.7899.55.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: > On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 23:21 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: >> 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. > > In that case the reviewer should be made part of the forwarding chain, > and it should be made clear to whoever is upstream that this is a patch > that has not been modified since it was reviewed. It's more comfortable for the reviewer to send a mail reply with the tag. But modifications after review are a problem either way. (If the modifications are minor, add a description below the Reviewed-by and sign off below that additional description. If they are major, drop the Reviewed-by. However, a follow-up patch instead of modifying the reviewed patch should be considered and may be suitable in many cases, since a patch which passed review should already be fine for commit on its own.) >> > Being sure of something and making guarantees are different things. > > To a lawyer, yes. To everyone else, no, and the GPL already tells you > that you are given no warranties. OK. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =-=- -=-== http://arcgraph.de/sr/