Re: [PATCH lttng-ust] Add trace instrumentation for some pthread functions.

[Stefan Seefeld <stefan@seefeld.name>]

On 08/07/2013 12:31 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Stefan Seefeld (stefan_seefeld@mentor.com) wrote:
>> On 08/07/2013 12:12 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>> Please note that as soon as you get my acked-by, you can consider this
>>> patch accepted. It's just that we don't have the staging branches to
>>> keep them around, nor the manpower to maintain a 3rd branch in parallel
>>> with the current stable+rc.
>>>
>>> Thoughts ?
>> I understand if it makes things easier for you as maintainer if you ask
>> contributors to do the rebase before their (approved) patches are to be
>> merged. But your wording seemed to suggest that I should resend the
>> actual patch, not regenerate it after rebasing to a future master, which
>> confused me as in that case I'd need to keep around a free-floating
>> patch that is neither version-controlled nor archived.
> I'm OK with contributors rebasing a patch before resubmission, of
> course. However, if the rebase required any change at all to the patch,
> the "acked-by" tags should be removed, and the fact that it's been
> accepted and then rebased (with changes) should be pointed out in the
> changelog, ideally with a quick summary of the changes required for the
> rebase. This should make the merge process quick and straightforward,
> without risks of us missing an issue introduced by the rebase.
>
> Does it make sense ?

OK. You are right, the patch may not actually require any change, given
that it's (mostly) new files.

Thanks,
    Stefan

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...