| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 04:02:02PM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> - Reviewed-by: Reviewed the patch thoroughly |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> What extra information does this tell us? This can be seen on ML. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I think the idea is that you shouldn't need to refer to an external |
| 7 |
resource like the mailing list to understand the idea behind the |
| 8 |
patch, or the amount of review it received. The body of the commit |
| 9 |
message should summarize the consensus reached on the mailing list, |
| 10 |
and these tags are basically standardized thank-you notes crediting |
| 11 |
non-authors who were involved in that process. They don't have to go |
| 12 |
on every patch, but if you want to mention somebody: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Reviewed-by: Random J Developer <random@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
| 15 |
Reviewed-by: Other R Developer <other@×××××××××××××××××.org> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
at the end of the commit message is easier to write and read than: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This patch was reviewed Random J Developer |
| 20 |
<random@×××××××××××××××××.org> and Other R Developer |
| 21 |
<other@×××××××××××××××××.org>. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Trevor |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 28 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives