[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 02/26] conf: Make virDomainPCIAddressSetGrow() private



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...


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]