Acked-by, signed-off-by, vs reviewed-by

[Keith Packard]

Excerpts from Jeremy Huddleston's message of Fri Oct 23 09:57:54 +0900 2009:
> So what actually is the difference between these.  I'm guessing this  
> usage, but it would be nice if this were written in stone somewhere on  
> the wiki:
> 
> Acked - I agree with the general idea of what you're doing

Yeah, I think this is right, with a slight overtone of 'we need this'

> Reviewed - I looked at your changes, and it looks right

Yes, Reviewed-by: is the most significant tag, and differs from 'signed
off by' because it's a peer review, not maintainer pass-through. I
would love to see lots of these messages, especially on complicated
changes. Having several of these greatly increases the chances of my
taking the patch directly from email to the server.

> Signed-off - I reviewed and tried your changes, it doesn't bork my  
> use, and it looks right in general

Nope, this is just a 'assuming the code is correct, I approve this to
be included in the server'. It doesn't imply as careful a review as
the 'Reviewed-by:' tag, and is used in the process of passing code
through a chain of sub-system maintainers up to the release manager.

I attach S-o-b lines to anything I take from email and apply to the
tree, but not to patches added via a merge.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091023/905ca030/attachment.pgp