From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/40] Add target architecture MinGW. Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:22:21 -0800 Message-ID: <7vir00lski.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1204138503-6126-1-git-send-email-johannes.sixt@telecom.at> <1204138503-6126-4-git-send-email-johannes.sixt@telecom.at> <200803052221.12495.johannes.sixt@telecom.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 05 23:23:25 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JX21C-0002HR-Lj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:23:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752077AbYCEWWe (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:22:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753244AbYCEWWd (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:22:33 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:55308 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752077AbYCEWWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:22:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F04F29E5; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E273C29E3; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:22:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:18:53 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Thanks! > > With this, I think I have nothing to add to your series (except maybe an > Acked-by: where it applies, or a Reviewed-by:, but I think that this > would only be a burden on our maintainer). I think Reviewed-by: would indeed be a very good addition to our patch flow convention, borrowing from the kernel folks.