Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

["Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com>]

On 10/8/07, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >snip...
> >Acked-by:
> >Tested-by:
>
> * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
> patch.
>
> >Reviewed-by:
>
> * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
>   look at it in depth
---

A couple of months ago there was a thread about Acked-by. At that time
the consensus seemed to be that it was inappropriate for random people
to add Acked-by - that it should only be added by people whose opinion
was expected to a gate for merging. Did the Summit reach a decision
that Acked-by was for anybody and Reviewed-by was for authorities?

I like Randy's point - the assigning of weight to the Reviewer's
opinion is necessarily in the hands of those at the top of the merge
process and there's no need to ask reviewers to decide whether their
opinion matters. In that view, "Acked-by" means "I have no objection
to this patch, but don't claim deep review" and "Reviewed-by" means "I
have no objection to this patch after a thorough review", and either
can be attached by anybody who wants to express an opinion.

scott
-- 
scott preece