Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 23:21 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: >> people in the patch >> forwarding chain should only add this tag if the reviewer sent it >> explicitly in his response. Unlike with Acked-by and Tested-by, we must >> not guess whether a reviewer wants to have his Reviewed-by added. > > In that case the reviewer should be made part of the forwarding chain, > and it should be made clear to whoever is upstream that this is a patch > that has not been modified since it was reviewed.
It's more comfortable for the reviewer to send a mail reply with the tag. But modifications after review are a problem either way. (If the modifications are minor, add a description below the Reviewed-by and sign off below that additional description. If they are major, drop the Reviewed-by. However, a follow-up patch instead of modifying the reviewed patch should be considered and may be suitable in many cases, since a patch which passed review should already be fine for commit on its own.) >> > Being sure of something and making guarantees are different things. > > To a lawyer, yes. To everyone else, no, and the GPL already tells you > that you are given no warranties. OK. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =-=- -=-== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
