Acked-by, signed-off-by, vs reviewed-by
greg at kroah.com
Thu Oct 22 23:55:07 PDT 2009
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 03:10:59PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Jeremy Huddleston's message of Fri Oct 23 09:57:54 +0900 2009:
> > 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.
Do you want to do what the Linux kernel does, and state that S-o-b is
agreeing to the Developer's Certificate of Origin? That is where this
came from, so keeping it to mean the same thing might be a good idea.
More information about the xorg-devel