[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device
From: |
Anthony Liguori |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device |
Date: |
Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:20:21 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.15.2+202~g0c4b8aa (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:
> Am 08.07.2013 16:10, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> (Just a nit and responding because this happens commonly).
>>>
>>> You probably mean Reviewed-by. Acked-by really means, "I am not the
>>> maintainer of this area, I have not reviewed this patch, but I am
>>> generally okay with the idea as best I can tell."
>>
>> Don't you mean "I *am* the maintainer of this area" ? I've always
>> assumed it means "as the maintainer I have a potential veto over
>> this code change and I am explicitly not exercising it even though
>> I may not have done a complete review and/or test"...
>
> I think Anthony was referring to: if I am the maintainer I don't usually
> put tags on patches but pick them up and add my Signed-off-by.
> (Possible exception: when only part of a series is good and you don't
> feel like cherry-picking from it.)
Right, it goes:
1) Acked-by:
I haven't reviewed the code in detail but the general idea seems sane.
2) Reviewed-by:
The general idea seems sane, and I have done a thorough review of the
patch in question.
3) Signed-off-by:
All of the above, plus I have ensured that the code is of good quality,
does not break things, and the other things expected of a maintainer.
This is considered to be a legally binding statement too based on the
DCO so be aware of that and ensure you have the right approval to make
such a statement.
Semantics aside, let me be clear. If you want a patch to be merged,
you need to do a Reviewed-by.
Acked-by is not good enough to get something merged on its own.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Paul Durrant, 2013/07/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Stefano Stabellini, 2013/07/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Matt Wilson, 2013/07/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Peter Maydell, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Alex Bligh, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Andreas Färber, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device,
Anthony Liguori <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Peter Maydell, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Andreas Färber, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Stefano Stabellini, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Stefano Stabellini, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Stefano Stabellini, 2013/07/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/08
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/08