diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 54 |
1 files changed, 51 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 08a1ed1cb5d8..cc00c8e8f040 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just point out some special detail about the sign-off. -13) When to use Acked-by: +13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. @@ -349,11 +349,59 @@ Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. - When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing +When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing list archives. +If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not +provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch. +This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the +person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties +have been included in the discussion -14) The canonical patch format + +14) Using Test-by: and Reviewed-by: + +A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in +some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that +some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for +future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. + +Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found +acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: + + Reviewer's statement of oversight + + By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: + + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to + evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into + the mainline kernel. + + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch + have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied + with the submitter's response to my comments. + + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this + submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a + worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known + issues which would argue against its inclusion. + + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I + do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any + warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated + purpose or function properly in any given situation. + +A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an +appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious +technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can +offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to +reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been +done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to +understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally +increase the liklihood of your patch getting into the kernel. + + +15) The canonical patch format The canonical patch subject line is: |