| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Alexander Berntsen <alexander@××××××.net>wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 4 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> We have quite a few dedicated developers now. To ensure that good |
| 7 |
> taste is exercised, and that best practices are followed, patches |
| 8 |
> should be signed. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'm confused, are you proposing all patches have all of these fields? Or we |
| 12 |
should simply cherry-pick the fields we think are useful? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> My proposals: |
| 17 |
> Signed-off-by: Wrote (a substantial portion of) the patch |
| 18 |
> Reviewed-by: Reviewed the patch thoroughly |
| 19 |
> Tested-by: Tested the patch thoroughly |
| 20 |
> Acked-by: Approved the concept but did not read the patch in detail |
| 21 |
> (typically used by the maintainer of a specific portion, or our lead) |
| 22 |
> Suggested-by: Designed the implementation |
| 23 |
> Reported-by: Reported the bug/feature request |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> These suggestions all stem from the Linux project. |
| 26 |
> - -- |
| 27 |
> Alexander |
| 28 |
> alexander@××××××.net |
| 29 |
> http://plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 30 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlLX3JsACgkQRtClrXBQc7VhEQD9FKmFbyf9zxl+hLylkhQN/kv6 |
| 35 |
> o3DSM4xBr9fH4+1eokYA/3MbFLtDpli311d6ZqGD17kGLfz5wNj+5kPRATbiC256 |
| 36 |
> =cJNe |
| 37 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
Archives