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: <20070602141144.GC5500@stusta.de>
Date:	Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> 
> Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by:
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
> 
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches |   15 ++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by
> +++ a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -328,7 +328,20 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna
>  point out some special detail about the sign-off. 
>  
>  
> -12) The canonical patch format
> +12) When to use Acked-by:
> +
> +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development
> +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.

The last part should be dropped: If "he/she was in the patch's delivery 
path", a Signed-off-by: tag is required.

> +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.

"merged" seems to be superfluous if you also mention "forwarded".

> +13) The canonical patch format
>  
>  The canonical patch subject line is:

Please mention explicitely whether Acked-by: this now considered a 
formal tag like Signed-off-by:

IOW, if a maintainer says "fine with me", can I translate this to an 
Acked-by: line, or do I now have to ask for an explicit Acked-by: line?

Oh, and that's not a theoretical question, this is a result of a recent 
flamewar^Wdiscussion on this list...

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/