From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42858)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Vbw1Z-0002bR-Hj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:27:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Vbw1Q-0004DA-O3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:27:13 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46363 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1Vbw1Q-0004Cx-Ej
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:27:04 -0400
Message-ID: <527292E5.6050706@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:01 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1382724449-11944-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org>
	<20131031140243.GA24705@zapo.xilinx.com> <527266C1.8060904@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA_pBETP6+wUrVbp03t3O8ae61pn=obO6GoSiU49curcug@mail.gmail.com>
	<52726B02.8020500@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA9p=R5x4NhOE3tfhecEAMHjmQ3wDJtH_G2E_qVoyYupog@mail.gmail.com>
	<52728FFE.4000802@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA9z1t83ZqbSfjrxR_0=MQqx7Y3cxnaQJGFV_HV80-v96w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9z1t83ZqbSfjrxR_0=MQqx7Y3cxnaQJGFV_HV80-v96w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>

Am 31.10.2013 18:18, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 31 October 2013 17:14, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas F=C3=A4rber <afaerber@suse.de> wrot=
e:
>>>> It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>>> exactly such a case where sender=3Dsubmaintainer should be recorded =
as
>>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>>
>>> ...but you're not the submaintainer here so I don't think this applie=
s.
>>
>> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
>> sending the pull.
>=20
> Er, no, because they're ARM subsystem patches.

You misunderstand. You sending an ARM patch in your ARM PULL with just
your Sob is the same as me sending a CPU patch with just my Sob in my
CPU PULL. That's what I was saying.

It is NOT about whether someone can veto something, it's about getting
external review and formally recognizing that review.
If Anthony is apparently making a retreat on that front, then we don't
necessarily need external review on our own subsystems, but if we want
to evaluate which or how many patches have been reviewed by someone else
then we need to record that in the commit message in *some* way. I don't
care what -by it is as long as we have and respect a clear rule.

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg