Hi Jonathan,

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 06:11:18PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/05/25 17:53 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Xavier Del Campo Romero <xavi....@tutanota.com>
> > Co-authored-by: Martin Uecker <uec...@tugraz.at>
> > Acked-by: "James K. Lowden" <jklow...@schemamania.org>
> 
> What does this Acked-by: indicate?

<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by>

        Acked-by: may also be used by other stakeholders, such as people
        with domain knowledge (e.g. the original author of the code
        being modified), userspace-side reviewers for a kernel uAPI
        patch or key users of a feature.

        [...]

        Acked-by: is also less formal than Reviewed-by:.  For instance,
        maintainers may use it to signify that they are OK with a patch
        landing, but they may not have reviewed it as thoroughly as if a
        Reviewed-by: was provided.  Similarly, a key user may not have
        carried out a technical review of the patch, yet they may be
        satisfied with the general approach, the feature or the
        user-facing interface.

> My guess would be that it indicates approval for the patch, but Jim is
> not an approver for the C front end, so he can't approve this patch.

That would be a Reviewed-by:.  Acked-by: can be used by a reviewer when
they like the patch but haven't reviewed as seriously as a Reviewed-by:
tag would imply.  It can also be used --like in this case-- for when
someone who can't approve it, still wants to express approval.

> Does Acked-by: indicate something other than approval?

There are degrees of approval.  The formal one would be Reviewed-by:.
The informal one would be Acked-by:.

>  When it's
> somebody who can't approve the patch, how is it different to
> Reviewed-by:?

Someone who can't aapprove the patch wouldn't usually emit a
Reviewed-by:.  Unless they feel so strongly qualified as an exception to
review the patch (e.g., if you review a patch for the man pages about
_Atomic, you could say you've Reviewed-by, because even when you don't
have commit rights, I'm going to trust your review more than my own).

> I'm not overjoyed by the idea of trailers that mean something in some
> other project (e.g. the kernel) but are just co-opted to mean
> something slightly (or completely) different in the GCC repo without
> some kind of agreement from the community about what they mean *here*.

I use them with the exact meaning of
<https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by>.
I would encourage using them.  They convey useful information.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > gcc/c-family/c-common.cc               |  26 +++++
> > gcc/c-family/c-common.def              |   3 +
> > gcc/c-family/c-common.h                |   2 +
> > gcc/c/c-decl.cc                        |  22 +++-
> > gcc/c/c-parser.cc                      |  59 +++++++---
> > gcc/c/c-tree.h                         |   4 +
> > gcc/c/c-typeck.cc                      | 115 +++++++++++++++++-
> > gcc/doc/extend.texi                    |  30 +++++
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-compile.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-vla.c     |  51 ++++++++
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof.c         | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 11 files changed, 572 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-compile.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof-vla.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/countof.c
> > 
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to