On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 31.10.2013 16:16, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 31 October 2013 14:36, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> 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 >
