[Sugar-devel] Acked-by vs Reviewed-by

[James Cameron]

That's really up to the maintainer.  If the maintainer pushes the
patch, then Acked-by may be inferred.

In general these procedures scale well to large numbers of
maintainers, contributors, and reviewers.  I'm not sure they remain
appropriate for Sugar given the size of the community at the moment.

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:13:45AM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> So, if I understand this correctly, every Glucose patch should have had an
> Acked-by tag, since every patch should have been approved by a maintainer
> according to our review policies. (That has not been the case)
> 
> 
> On 3 April 2013 23:50, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:07:07PM +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>     > it seems that most of our patches should have a Reviewed-by tag, on the
>     > contrary I see Acked-by used most of the time (at the top of the
>     > sugar-toolkit-gtk3 log at least).
>     >
>     > Am I missing something?
> 
>     I agree with others; for Glucose since I am not maintainer I would add
>     Reviewed-by, but for Pippy since I am maintainer I would add Acked-by.
> 
>     (If I add Acked-by to a patch, I might also push it, depending on
>     whether the contributor is known to be able to push, and whether more
>     work is happening right at the moment.)
>    
>     --
>     James Cameron
>     http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Daniel Narvaez

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/