From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/40] Add target architecture MinGW. Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:28:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: 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> <7vir00lski.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 05 23:28:58 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 1JX26Z-0004gg-PL for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:28:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754323AbYCEW2Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:28:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754563AbYCEW2Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:28:16 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59803 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754323AbYCEW2P (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:28:15 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Mar 2008 22:28:13 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp047) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2008 23:28:13 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/hAYUCQILh6TZVIkeWUddsczbbgTVf/kKjkZvp7O y6Tw9f5m/eWYjB X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vir00lski.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. You mean you have more people to blame, then? ;-) Ciao, Dscho