Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending >>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've >>>> gotten an Acked-by. >>> >>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the >>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail >>> to the list with an Acked-by line. >> >> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by >> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in >> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as >> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes. > > Nope. If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:". Don't > make people infer your Acked-bys.
Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there. Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise. I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all, such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as pull without Reviewed-by. > And adding tags is a nice-to-have. There is no "rule" stating that > you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list. But I > expect that maintainers try to Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then fine with me. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg