From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758596AbdEVMG4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 08:06:56 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:34628 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758208AbdEVMGz (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 08:06:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:06:48 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20170522120648.zfgf25d7senf3ny2@sirena.org.uk> References: <20170504043625.6669-1-javier@dowhile0.org> <20170514095216.3wterzz6swowpzli@sirena.org.uk> <20170516075140.vsw3el5r7d2krylb@dell> <20170516110634.owmasmh2qjmyc7io@sirena.org.uk> <20170522110604.g66mzwhkum4v6eyp@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7nf464kdgyvnkch3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170522110604.g66mzwhkum4v6eyp@dell> X-Cookie: I never did it that way before. User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:1f1d:6b5::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk); Unknown failure Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --7nf464kdgyvnkch3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote: > > > It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will > > > *eventually* be applied by me. Removing them when applying patches is > > > part of my daily routine. > > You're the only person I'm aware of who does this. > The operative words here are "I'm aware". Conversely, I know lots of > Maintainers who do this, but I guess that comes with the territory > when dealing with the types of patch-sets that I handle. Often times Interesting... any examples? I get quite a bit of this as well as a result of regmap and regulator and I can't say it's ever come up. > > > TL;DR: If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by > > > tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until > > > acceptance. > > Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than > > anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them. > I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this. An ack is basically a step down from a review saying "I'm OK with this being applied" but not actually "I did a thorough review". That makes it a bit funny compared to a review, testing or similar. --7nf464kdgyvnkch3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlki1FcACgkQJNaLcl1U h9A9kgf/XO1RtMRy/p32f86h3GnBx5kMHovorj3Qnt0k1p1H8JrCSdoOZsudv65s WnXJjLruhXTAwAl+STl00iHAvyfqtISUJhXU1m9OzImqmBOLiwH1tB4n8OVqKzmR cJRHINayj32KBBKjGbVwnmAozjuW6S/sEQKPLTDWmOWUdNJjVG3KsWWA4fF0U+ww EjutXmoz+0PKfxSUTkwitV6aW9ect0kOsf2mpIwrwFq698XcffTsqnZhidnVsGK1 fBl6ZcAQMY+P3WBE0QkrdmbMCPGaCehYnpC2ws2oTqm51uCK88Uh5hstpTwtyrT4 n6zWQ5/5F8YIkwNqbCJKbfwjm4HvDg== =mVd/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7nf464kdgyvnkch3--