On 06/12/2017 05:20 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 08:35 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
Reviewed-by: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org>
(This *is* the new hot way to say ACK, right?)
It is not a replacement (AFAIK only rebels like John and Pavel use it) and it is not an equivalent (with Reviewed-by, I assume the reviewer wants me to make it a part of the commit history).
Both ACK and R-B are perfectly acceptable ways to signal the submitter you consider their code suitable for merging. As a project we don't currently mandate or prefer either form, so feel free to use the one you like best :)
Yeah, I noticed the discussion awhile back and then noticed that some people had started using it, so wasn't sure if I'd missed some memo about "phasing it in" or something. Personally, I like the ease/brevity of "ACK", and as for having a Reviewed-by as part of the commit history, I have two comments: 1) I don't care much about having *my* reviews documented in the history, but it's sometimes useful to know who the reviewer was when it's someone else (of course others will say the same for patches that *I* review, so... :-) So I'm conflicted. It seems like a good idea but takes more time. Too bad there's not some commit hook that could search the email archives for the message with the ACK for a patch and add a Reviewed-by to the commit automatically...