Re: [Xen-devel] Spurious Acks (was Re: PVH domU patches....)

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:43:19PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 09:00:58AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:00:37AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:21:33 +0100
> > > > Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> At 14:43 -0700 on 31 Jul (1375281803), Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > > >> > The latest tree with Tim's acks are at:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >    git clone git://oss.oracle.com/git/mrathor/xen.git .
> > > >> >    git checkout pvh.v10.acked-1
> > > >>
> > > >> This branch has my Reviewed-by: on
> > > >> 1f2087845751569fc55c202ac3265e18c974b0bf (PVH xen: vmcs related
> > > >> changes), which I don't remember giving. Please be careful about that
> > > >> sort of thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> There have been a few instances in the past of patches that went in on
> > > >> someone else's ack that seem to have sprouted mine (not from Mukesh, I
> > > >> should add, and AFAICT through misunderstanding rather than malice).
> > > >> In future I am going to revert such patches when I notice them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >> Tim.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I misunderstood whey you said the code looked OK, I assumed it was
> > > > an implicit ack, as I've seen here in the past. I'll make a note, Tim
> > > > doesn't give implicit acks... :)...
> > > >
> > > > I'll remove your ack.
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure no one gives implicit Acks.  Saying the code looks OK
> > 
> > I do. If I say 'code looks OK to me' that implies to me 'Acked-by'.
> > 
> > That is similar to how Linux works (from Documentation/SubmittingPatches):
> > 
> > "                                                                      
> > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the 
> > acker       
> > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch  
> >        
> 
> "at least reviewed the patch"? That's news to me. Geroge once told me
> that Acked-by only means "I'm OK with this idea, I don't even look at the
> patch at all". I'm quite confused here. :-(

Maybe we should copy the SubmittingPatches from Linux in the file so we
have it in there and just base it on that?

> 
> 
> Wei.
> 
> > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"  
> >        
> > into an Acked-by:."
> > 
> > 
> > > is just that -- it says the code looks OK, not that the person is OK
> > > with the code going in, and absolutely not everything that
> > > "Reviewed-by" means (which is a lot more than an Ack).
> > > 
> > >  -George
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xen-devel mailing list
> > > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

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