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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <11341.1180718845@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:27:25 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:10:42 PDT, "H. Peter Anvin" said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT, akpm@...ux-foundation.org said:
> > 
> >> +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: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> >> +maintainer neither wrote, merged nor forwarded the patch themselves.
> > 
> > Do we want to add verbiage saying that an Acked-By: is also useful when it
> > comes from somebody (likely the original reporter) who has actually tested the
> > patch?
> 
> I'd rather see a Tested-By: for that.
> 
> There is a difference between a maintainer ack and a tester ok.

OK by me.  Half the time when a -mm breaks for me, it's an obvious one-liner
I can S-o-b: myself, the other half the time somebody else has a fix that
I keep thinking I should stick *something* on once I confirm it's fixed.

Do Linus/Andrew/major maintainers want Tested-By:'s for patches?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped