Re: Acked-by: [was: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] enter.c: Use wmem*() functions with] wide-character strings

Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev <[email protected]> Sat, 14 Feb 2026 17:37:36 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<aZCj-6gy4ewB-IvZ@devuan>

Hi Greg, Rene,

On 2026-02-14T17:30:47+0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:26:34PM +0100, Rene Kita wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:03:59PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> > 
> > As we are just going back to working with patches on the ML I would
> > suspect that we are not doing acks.
> > 
> > But, should we? I know how it works, but what is it good for?
> 
> It shows that someone else reviewed and agreed with it.  We use it in
> kernel development to be a "less than" type of comment compared to
> "Reviewed-by:".  Which really, I should have given here as I did review
> the thing :)

If you explicitly give Rb, I'll take it.  :)

> > I guess it might make sense in big projects where some domain expert
> > can ack a patch and the BDFL then sees it's OK to apply. I don't see
> > that necessity for mutt.

Even if we could survive without it, it's always good (or at least
certainly not bad) to know that X has reviewed a patch.  Then it's up to
the person taking the patch to decide whether X's review is meaningful
or not, but it's one more data point.

Also, when finding a bug in the future, one may look at the commit that
introduced the bug, and email everyone mentioned in the commit message,
as those people will know something about the patch.

> 
> Hey, that's fine, but it's always good to get others to review stuff if
> possible, right?

+1

Cheers,
Alex

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)