From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvpX-0005jc-Dp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:14:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvpS-0008Mu-3V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:14:47 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46002 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvpR-0008Mp-QE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:14:42 -0400 Message-ID: <52728FFE.4000802@suse.de> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:14:38 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1382724449-11944-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20131031140243.GA24705@zapo.xilinx.com> <527266C1.8060904@suse.de> <52726B02.8020500@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrot= e: >>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pen= ding >>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches shoul= d've >>>> gotten an Acked-by. >>> >>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the >>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail >>> to the list with an Acked-by line. >> >> No, I added a Signed-off-by. >=20 > I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those > patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue. Right, and as such they got a Signed-off-by, which should've been visible in the link I usually add. Here's the pull messages you should've been cc'ed on: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281630/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281575/ I don't see why I should reply with a Reviewed-by when I pick up patches - again, same discussion as at QEMU Summit. >> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by >> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in >> exactly such a case where sender=3Dsubmaintainer should be recorded as >> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes. >=20 > ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applies. It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer sending the pull. > The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that > the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as > "looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to > treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreemen= t > with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it > properly. If Anthony had been and would be more responsive as to why he didn't pull the queue containing these patches with two different Sobs, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Or had you not gone on vacation or sent another pull before etc. etc. Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg