> >> +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.
Indeed. Acked-by: implies authority, and only very few people should be able to do it. Namely, the only person who can ACK a patch is a person who could also NACK a patch and expect it to actually be dropped. If I think a patch is bad, I can say so, but as I have no authority, my statement would be taken on merit alone, whereas Linus or Andrew or such could just NACK it and move on without having to spew a blurb every time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
