On 31 October 2013 14:36, 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.
I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue. > 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. ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies. The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as "looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreement with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it properly. -- PMM
