Re: [PATCH] doc: correct command formatting

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 29, 2017, 03:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20170929032653.GA28303@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk20iz2w9.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
>> Andreas Heiduk wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>>> +1, Thanks for spotting.
>>
>> Thanks for looking it over.  Can we add your Reviewed-by?  (See [1]
>> for what this means.)
>
> I would just do "Acked-by: Andreas" after seeing such an obvious
> admission of guilt & appreciation for fixing in the exchange.

Oh!  I had missed that context.

Your instinct would have been right (and is born out by Andreas's reply to me).

I was just fishing, but in this context there was no reason to fish for more than the Ack that was already there.

> Would we rather want to make it more formal like how Linux folks do
> the Reviewed-by: thing?

Separate from this example: yes, I think adopting Linux's Reviewed-by convention would be a good thing. When I see a positive reply to a patch, I often wonder whether an ack or a fuller reviewed-by is intended, and Linux's way of formalizing that appeals to me.

I'll try sending a patch to add it to SubmittingPatches tomorrow morning (Stefan had also been hinting recently about this being something worth trying).

Thank you, Jonathan