On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/19/2011 03:30 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 18/08/11 17:44, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 08/18/2011 10:42 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>>> [Moving this discussion to the Matahari list]
>>>
>>> On 18/08/11 14:22, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One thing to note from the guidelines that we haven't been doing is
>>>> including the Acked-by and Reported-by tags. I would still like to use
>>>> those, but it's obviously open for discussion.
>>>
>>> The traditional way that this works is that the person doing the Ack-ing
>>> adds Acked-by and pushes the patch upstream themselves. I like having it
>>> there, but the tools don't make it as easy as I'd like it to be with
our
>>> current workflow.
>>
>> Well it's just as much work for the person doing the acking to add it as
>> it would be for the original author, right? It's overhead either way,
>> but is it worth it?
>>
>
> Nope, actually "stg edit --ack" is a *lot* easier, and it doesn't
> require me to spell anyone's name or email address correctly, including
> my own ;)
Ok, well I don't feel that strongly about it so let's just remove it
from the guidelines for now. I'll take care of that.
I kinda like the idea of knowing who did the review, so I think its
worth preserving in some form.
I agree that its easier for the committer to add the ack though.
Maybe that means the reviewer does the commit?