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]

Date:	Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:42:38 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>,
	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:

> I think the comment had to do with the concept that ACK/NAK implies
> authority.  If you're not the maintainer, it's rude to imply that you
> are.  Obvious, test reports (good or bad!) are always welcome.

Well, I understand a test is a different thing, an experiment to
see if the patch works or not, while ack/etc. is just opinion
of someone who reads the patch without actually using it.

I think ack/etc doesn't, in any way, imply being the maintainer,
though it imply that the "acker" has actually read the code,
understands it, and believes it's correct (or not, and why).

If we want to differentiate between "authoritative" and
"non-authoritative" opinions (and the name and email address
aren't enough) then I think we need to state that explicite
(perhaps something like "Acked-by: FIRST M. LAST <addr>, XXX
subsystem maintainer" would suffice).
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/