From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758837AbXIGVas (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:30:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758575AbXIGVal (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:30:41 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]:35986 "EHLO sj-iport-6.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758574AbXIGVaj (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:30:39 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,222,1186383600"; d="scan'208";a="214206459" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, 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 X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information 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> <20070907193159.GA3023@infradead.org> From: Roland Dreier Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:30:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070907193159.GA3023@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:31:59 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2007 21:30:36.0628 (UTC) FILETIME=[545F7940:01C7F196] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > 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".... > 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. At ksummit Andrew also mentioned including a link to the relevant mailing list discussion too, and I think this would be a good example of when that would be useful. - R.