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

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:14 PM, 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:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>
>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by.
>>
>> I checked my mail and the only thing I can find in reply to those
>> patches is a note from you saying you added them to your queue.
>
> Right, and as such they got a Signed-off-by, which should've been
> visible in the link I usually add. Here's the pull messages you
> should've been cc'ed on:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281630/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/281575/
>
> I don't see why I should reply with a Reviewed-by when I pick up patches
> - again, same discussion as at QEMU Summit.
>
>>> 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.
>
>> The point about the kernel practice as I understood it was that
>> the kernel folks treat acked-by at about the same level of review as
>> "looks ok to me" (ie, very little), not that there's some obligation to
>> treat any informal 'looks ok' note as an acked-by. I'm in full agreement
>> with Anthony that if you want a tag to appear you should send it
>> properly.
>
> If Anthony had been and would be more responsive as to why he didn't
> pull the queue containing these patches with two different Sobs, we
> wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Or had you not
> gone on vacation or sent another pull before etc. etc.

Your tree is broken.  I gave you the errors that it produced.  You
were able to produce your own errors.  It's your responsibility, as a
subsystem maintainer, to test (and fix) your own tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

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