To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by:
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT."
             <200706010209.l51299kN000531@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
References: <200706010209.l51299kN000531@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1180675923_7167P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:32:03 -0400
Message-ID: <28278.1180675923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1245
Lines: 35

--==_Exmh_1180675923_7167P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:09:10 PDT, akpm@linux-foundation.org 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: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> +maintainer neither wrote, merged nor forwarded the patch themselves.

Do we want to add verbiage saying that an Acked-By: is also useful when it
comes from somebody (likely the original reporter) who has actually tested the
patch?


--==_Exmh_1180675923_7167P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQFGX69TcC3lWbTT17ARAs5GAJ91WwMC1mZPc3FQyAG6wFDA+iJGtwCfUHtw
xCd3niuARwsg2LJIuSD6smc=
=2DEj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_1180675923_7167P--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/