On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Jackson, le Tue 11 Jan 2011 16:43:55 +0000, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: minios: don't retrieve
> > the address of void variable"):
> > > And my signed-off-by was mostly to express that I have completely
> > > checked the patch and give my formal approval on it for inclusion. My
> > > former acked-by, as expressed: in SubmittingPatches: üis not as
> > > formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker has at least
> > > reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. [...] Acked-by: does
> > > not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.ý, i.e. it
> > > looked good to me without giving so formal approval.
> > Yes, I think if you meant "I like this patch and think it should be
> > committed" then Acked-by is correct.
> Well, in Linux Signed-off-by is also used in that case, e.g. when Andrew
> Morton applies a patch to his tree (he actually almost never uses
> Acked-by: 33 overs 30164 in my checkout, I doubt he has acually worked
> on all these).
Linux maintainers add their Signed-off-by every time they apply a patch
by hand or make a tiny change to a commit.
Xen-devel mailing list