From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: update win8 OSI blacklist Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 01:32:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20131007003247.GA21999@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20131006203353.GA19795@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006204518.GA20077@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006205928.GA20296@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006233106.GA21562@srcf.ucam.org> <20131006235702.GA21738@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:57138 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754957Ab3JGAcu (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:32:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:27:48PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > If _you_ want to add comments for each entry in the list you can do so > after this patch is applied. If you want to participate in a collaborative development effort you should pay attention to other people's concerns. I don't get the final say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent chance that I'm going to be the one who has to remove the entries again once the backlight mess is fixed up. My life would be significantly easier if the entries are unambiguously identified in such a way that I can remove them without having to dig through git history to figure out where each came from. Is that really an unreasonable request? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org