Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760968AbXFBBg2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:36:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757307AbXFBBgU (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:36:20 -0400 Received: from h80ad2262.async.vt.edu ([128.173.34.98]:53714 "EHLO h80ad2262.async.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756559AbXFBBgU (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:36:20 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: Scott Preece , "John Anthony Kazos Jr." , "H. Peter Anvin" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:46 +0200." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <200706010209.l51299kN000531@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <28278.1180675923@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <465FB862.207@zytor.com> <7b69d1470706011237j50f29e4ch73f86acdc294fecd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1180748167_4213P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:36:07 -0400 Message-ID: <8127.1180748167@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1855 Lines: 45 --==_Exmh_1180748167_4213P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:46 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa said: > "Scott Preece" 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 eyes (or a single one) looking at the patch in question > is a good thing. I can't imagine why would one want to look at the > code if he/she can't ack or nak or otherwise comment it. I'd be the *first* to admit that my kernel-foo isn't perfect, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong when I review somebody else's code. I certainly *hope* that nobody's taking my review as anything more authoritative than "an actual maintainer might want to look at this". On the other hand, we don't need a Foo-By: tag for "or otherwise comment". Phrased differently, if I haven't stuck a "Signed-off-by:" or "Tested-By:" on it, I'm by default only commenting. The code submitter can decide I'm right and fix and resubmit, the maintainer can decide I'm right and toss a NAK. Or they can both decide I'm full of it and hit the Delete key.. --==_Exmh_1180748167_4213P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFGYMmHcC3lWbTT17ARAnT5AJ9vSkFSYQM1qpi7NMEHoC3OfpjaawCg7xOj nec/fGYmsNO1+7PGiF8op4Y= =v5jG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1180748167_4213P-- - 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/