From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/traces Acked patches. Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:46:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20130325164614.GA25268@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <1364222482-14697-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <515077C402000078000C830A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <51506F37.70600@eu.citrix.com> <51507FE102000078000C8398@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51507FE102000078000C8398@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:48:33PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 25.03.13 at 16:37, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 25/03/13 15:13, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> On 25.03.13 at 15:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>> Please commit these patches. I can also put these on a git tree > >>> (if you could create on for me on xenbits.org that is it) for a git pull. > >>> > >>> > >>> The trace patches have been Acked-by George. > >> You know what - I didn't apply them precisely because the ack > >> came through only for patches 3 and 4. I just checked the > >> xen-devel archives again, and that's the state of affairs right > >> now too. Possibly the ack was sent to you without Cc-ing > >> xen-devel, but that doesn't allow me to apply them. > > > > Is that because I had already Ack-ed an earlier version of the same > > patches, as noted right above Konrad's S-o-B line? > > I must have overlooked that, partly because I expect Acked-by > to be below Signed-off-by (only Reported-by goes ahead of it in > my opinion, to reflect work/event flow). Oh, that would be a different workflow than with Linux, where Acked-by has to be above the SOB. The SOB of the last person posting it has to be at the bottom - as that identifies who was the last person touching / sending from a git tree. > > > I'm not 100% sure the normal protocol, but Konrad has been around the > > block a few times; I would think that if Konrad put my Ack-by on > > something, then that should have the presumption of validity -- > > particularly if he cc'd me (which he did) and I didn't nack it. Right - it was done in two waves. The first two you Acked. Then a couple of days later I sent the other two - you Acked them too. And bundled up nicely I sent them out today. > > I see now that he Cc-ed you on the post from the 18th, but I > specifically noted that he didn't Cc you on the resubmission > today. Which together with me not having noticed the earlier > ack made things look inconsistent/incomplete. Ah > > Anyway - going to apply those now. Thank you! > > Jan >