From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932913AbXIGTcg (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:32:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758158AbXIGTc2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:32:28 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:52173 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752110AbXIGTc2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:32:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:31:59 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Theodore Tso , Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independent Code Message-ID: <20070907193159.GA3023@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Theodore Tso , Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070906200733.194442762@polymtl.ca> <20070906200825.893834634@polymtl.ca> <20070906160001.cfe48d78.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070906160429.629c9497.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070906163737.9cc91307.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070907160445.GB8911@thunk.org> <6791.1189185054@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6791.1189185054@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself > who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and > found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on > 64-bit, locking issues, etc), or other commentary that *should* be addressed > before it gets merged? I'd like *some* way to tag a patch with "I had an > issue with V1, but the author addressed it to my satisfaction in V2".... > > (Note that includes "the author convinced me the patch was right and I was > wrong"...) I think that'd be Reviewed-By. While you are not part of the smokey room cabal you have shown technical expertise in various areas so it seems perfectly fine to have reviewed-by from you. The fix vs a previous version should probably be just in the text with a paragraph ala: Issue blah in a previous version as found by Valdis Kletnieks has been fixed by doing foo.