From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58723) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtVb-0000BM-Qg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:46:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtVV-0001gH-Mj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:46:03 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39048 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtVV-0001gD-Cr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:45:57 -0400 Message-ID: <52726D22.709@suse.de> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:45:54 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1382724449-11944-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20131031140243.GA24705@zapo.xilinx.com> <527266C1.8060904@suse.de> <52726B02.8020500@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori , "Edgar E. Iglesias" Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas F=E4rber wr= ote: >> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pen= ding >>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches shoul= d'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. 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=3Dsubmaintainer should be recorded as >> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes. >=20 > Nope. If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:". Don't > make people infer your Acked-bys. Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there. Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise. I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all, such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as pull without Reviewed-by. > And adding tags is a nice-to-have. There is no "rule" stating that > you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list. But I > expect that maintainers try to Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and what to do if author=3D=3Dsubmaintainer. If you dropped that thought, the= n fine with me. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg