Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] Xen PV Device

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andreas FÃrber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Am 08.07.2013 16:10, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 8 July 2013 15:04, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel