diff options
| author | Brian Paul <brianp@vmware.com> | 2015-05-26 11:30:22 -0600 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Brian Paul <brianp@vmware.com> | 2015-05-26 12:16:36 -0600 |
| commit | 2ab0ca36c155cc77e3d5c950270c70a24efee3d3 (patch) | |
| tree | 9540cacc9ffafd6aba842e37decb82592826211e /docs | |
| parent | c6184f84b7227e1548947e42bca3ff3ddb7e379c (diff) | |
docs: add information about reviewing patches
Reviewed-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/devinfo.html | 25 |
1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/devinfo.html b/docs/devinfo.html index f5113b0bd7..eb3aba1364 100644 --- a/docs/devinfo.html +++ b/docs/devinfo.html @@ -266,6 +266,31 @@ re-sending the whole series). Using --in-reply-to makes it harder for reviewers to accidentally review old patches. </p> +<h3>Reviewing Patches</h3> + +<p> +When you've reviewed a patch on the mailing list, please be unambiguous +about your review. That is, state either +<pre> + Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com> +</pre> +or +<pre> + Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com> +</pre> +Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK". +</p> + +<p> +If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like: +<pre> + With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com> +</pre> +which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long +as the issues are resolved first. +</p> + + <h3>Marking a commit as a candidate for a stable branch</h3> <p> |