On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:02:45 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my > > pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad > > might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to > > fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that > > warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because > > it ended up being broken"). > > Is that a big problem ? I mean probably those who need an ACK just want > to be sure their PR was not lost between them and you. It's not a guarantee > that the code will be kept till the release anyway, and I tend to think > that changing your mind after attempting a build is not different than > changing your mind 3 days later. So when this happens, you're possibly > expected to simply notify the author later saying "sorry, I changed my > mind and finally I dropped your code for this or that reason". That > should be enough to cover the vast majority of use cases, no ?
Agreed, the ACK mail doesn't necessarily mean that everything right, but just ACK that the pull request is being processed. The e-mail communication can go wrong pretty easily (happened once or twice for my past PR's), so a simple ACK would relieve me wrt that point -- as Greg's ACK did indeed. thanks, Takashi
