On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:10:42 PDT, "H. Peter Anvin" said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
pgpw8oV3gn83d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
