qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:27:01 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0

Am 31.10.2013 18:18, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 31 October 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 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=submaintainer 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 applies.
>>
>> It does, because you are the patch author and the ARM submaintainer
>> sending the pull.
> 
> 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

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]