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 |
> |