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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <28278.1180675923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:32:03 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

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?


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped