Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][PATCH 00/16] Fix RMRR

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 09:08 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.07.15 at 10:03, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2015/7/16 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> On 10.07.15 at 16:50, <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> v7:
> >>>
> >>> It looks like most of the libxl/libxc patches have been acked.  It
> >>> seems to me that most of the hypervisor patches (1-3, 14-15) are
> >>> either ready to go in or pretty close.
> >>
> >> Now that I looked over v8 I have to admit that if I was a tools
> >> maintainer I wouldn't want to see some of the tools patches in
> >> with just an ack, but without any review.
> > 
> > I'm somewhat confused at this point.
> > 
> > Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
> > maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. It is a 
> > record that the acker has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated 
> > acceptance.
> > 
> > Does this imply this is already reviewed?
> 
> No, that would be expressed by Reviewed-by. Acked-by merely
> means no objection by the maintainer for the change to go in.

For my part I, perhaps wrongly, use Acked-by for both. If I haven't
actually carefully reviewed the change I will usually say so, e.g. "I
see XXX has reviewed this already, so that's fine by me" or something
similar (which I admit gets lost once it becomes just the tags).

I can't speak for Ian or Wei (now CCd) but Ian at least I think operates
similarly.

Ian.


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