Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-03 Thread Scott Preece
On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:06:14 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:57:41 -0700 Scott Preece wrote: > > > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... > > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:06:14 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:57:41 -0700 Scott Preece wrote: > > > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... > > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the > > > development > > --

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:57:41 -0700 Scott Preece wrote: > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the > > development > --- > > Change "implies" to "indicates" - it's an explicit statement, not an > implication

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Scott Preece
On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development --- Change "implies" to "indicates" - it's an explicit statement, not an implication. --- +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. + +

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do that often. It's useful information. If person X sends an fbdev > patch and Tony says "whoa, neat" and I send the patch to Linus then > Linus could > well think "wtf, Andrew doesn't know anything about fbdev". So I do s/whoa > neat/Acked-by:/ to

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:04:29 +0530, debian developer said: > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's quite common for experienced kernel developers to ack completely broken > > patches. > > common!! > > is'nt that a bit too ... Lots of code looks totally reasonable to a k

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:00:00PM -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > > > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from > > > > > Signed-off-by: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > + > > > > > > +If a person was not directly involved

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread John Anthony Kazos Jr.
> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from > > > > Signed-off-by: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > + > > > > > +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or > > > > handling of a > > > > > +patch but wishes to signi

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:47:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > > > -12) The canonical patch format > > > +12) When to use Acked-by: > > > + > > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the >

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200 Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Mor

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Jun 2 2007 19:04, debian developer wrote: > On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's quite common for experienced kernel developers to ack completely >> broken >> patches. > > common!! > > is'nt that a bit too ... too nack? Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Jun 1 2007 14:28, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from > > > Signed-off-by: > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[E

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 15 +

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-02 Thread debian developer
On 6/2/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's quite common for experienced kernel developers to ack completely broken patches. common!! is'nt that a bit too ... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] M

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:46 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa said: > "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a question worth answering - is it rude to ack/nak a patch if > > you're not a maintainer or otherwise known-to-be-trusted, or is it OK > > for anyone to express an opinion? Andrew

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Acked-by:" does not mean "I like this" but rather "I approve of this". I'd say it means "I acknowledge it". If you want to express approval, why not use some sort of "Approved-by"? > If I put "Acked-by: John..." on a patch of any kind, even

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread John Anthony Kazos Jr.
> > I think the comment had to do with the concept that ACK/NAK implies > > authority. If you're not the maintainer, it's rude to imply that you > > are. Obvious, test reports (good or bad!) are always welcome. > > Well, I understand a test is a different thing, an experiment to > see if the pat

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think the comment had to do with the concept that ACK/NAK implies > authority. If you're not the maintainer, it's rude to imply that you > are. Obvious, test reports (good or bad!) are always welcome. Well, I understand a test is a different thin

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> This is a question worth answering - is it rude to ack/nak a patch if >> you're not a maintainer or otherwise known-to-be-trusted, or is it OK >> for anyone to express an opinion? Andrew's patch text seems to imply >> that i

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
"Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a question worth answering - is it rude to ack/nak a patch if > you're not a maintainer or otherwise known-to-be-trusted, or is it OK > for anyone to express an opinion? Andrew's patch text seems to imply > that it's generally OK. Every pair of

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:00:24 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:37:54 -0500 > "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 6/1/07, Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Indeed.

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:37:54 -0500 "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/1/07, Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Indeed. Acked-by: implies authority, and only very few people should be > > > able to do it. Namel

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Scott Preece
On 6/1/07, Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Dave Jones
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:22:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:14:14 -0400 > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Explain what we use A

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:14:14 -0400 Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Mort

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Dave Jones
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > + > +If a person was not directly involved in the prepar

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:27:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Do Linus/Andrew/major maintainers want Tested-By:'s for patches? I think it's very useful information to have. For a start, it tells you who has the hardware and knows how to build a kernel. So if you're making a change to a driver a

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
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 th

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-06-01 Thread John Anthony Kazos Jr.
> >> +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 affec

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-05-31 Thread H. Peter Anvin
[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 patc

Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:

2007-05-31 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
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: