From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:29:11 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] legal-info: extract even no-redistribute packages In-Reply-To: <5328841D.8030100@lucaceresoli.net> References: <5d5bddd893ac6d6af3bf8caad0e27cfd78b2b960.1395097170.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <5328841D.8030100@lucaceresoli.net> Message-ID: <20140318192911.6948e0fe@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Luca Ceresoli, On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:36:29 +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Minor nit: package sources <-> save them (plural) > or: package archive <-> save it (singular) > > This is so smaller than the overall improvement in the patch, and it's > only in a comment which is understandable anyway, so I would tag this > patch as Reviewed-by me. But the recently established policy is that > "If you reviewed a patch and have comments on it, you should simply > reply to the patch stating these comments, without providing a > Reviewed-by or Acked-by tag.". > > So I cannot tag here, sorry, but fix this and I'll do so. > > BTW, what if I have comments but would commit as is and improve in a > successive patch? Should I add Acked/Review-by? This is the case here, > actually. Just say so in your review. Something like: "Peter, if you fix the minor nit , then you can add my Reviewed-by on this patch". Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com