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

On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:30:47PM +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:
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 04:22:53PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > This improves readability, and makes it more type safe (wmemcpy(3)
> > > > doesn't use void*).
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]>
> > > > Cherry-picked-from: neomutt.git 7df621a105e2 (2024-05-09; "Use wmem*() functions with wide-character strings")
> > > > [alx: Adapted diff to mutt; changed commit message]
> > > > Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]>
> > > 
> > > Don't know if we are doing acks, but if so:
> > > 
> > > 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 :)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Hey, that's fine, but it's always good to get others to review stuff if
> possible, right?

Sure. I also like getting feedback. I was more wondering if it is worth
it that someone has to update the commit message to add the Acked-by or
Reviewed-by.

For me it is enough when I see an OK on the ML.