Hi, On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:41:03AM +0000, Simon Rozman wrote: > > > Should your patch be merged, I shall rebase the "[PATCH 09/13] > > Signed/unsigned warnings of MSVC resolved" to the new master and deliver > > the next version. > > > > Yes, if you can review and ack/nak it :) > > You mean Gert to ack/nak it? I don't believe I have earned enough reputation > to do it yet.
Formally we have no really clear line on "who can do ACK/NAK" (and this has caused a bit of friction in the past, my fault, apologies). I tend to see ACKs as "I have stared at the code, ran some tests, can't see anything bad in the code and the change is useful" - but usually, David or I do our own review and tests before actually merging. Depending on the "track record" of the one sending that ACK, it might be a very loose review, or very thorough :-) (like, when Steffan ACKs a crypto patch, all I do is "does it compile and pass t_client test?", but I do not try to understand crypto library API nuances...). Sometimes I find things in post-ACK-review that reopen the discussion, though :-) NAKs are maybe even more important - "watch out, this code might break under circumstances x, y, z!" - while the reviewer only considered cases a, b and c... So - feel free to comment on patches you feel qualified to review! > However, I did stare-review your code: > - It does not introduce any new Windows API calls it has not used before. > - It compiles fine. Good enough for a start :-) gert -- now what should I write here... Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
