On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:30:54AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 09:08 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>>>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.c...@intel.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> v7: > > >>> > > >>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked. It > > >>> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are > > >>> either ready to go in or pretty close. > > >> > > >> Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools > > >> maintainer I wouldn't want to see some of the tools patches in > > >> with just an ack, but without any review. > > > > > > I'm somewhat confused at this point. > > > > > > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > > > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. It is a > > > record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated > > > acceptance. > > > > > > Does this imply this is already reviewed? > > > > No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely > > means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in. > > For my part I, perhaps wrongly, use Acked-by for both. If I haven't > actually carefully reviewed the change I will usually say so, e.g. "I > see XXX has reviewed this already, so that's fine by me" or something > similar (which I admit gets lost once it becomes just the tags). > > I can't speak for Ian or Wei (now CCd) but Ian at least I think operates > similarly. >
I do the same. I will explicitly say that if I give my ack without looking at the code. I use Reviewed-by when the component is not maintained by me. Wei. > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
