From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965710AbXIGRLy (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:11:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965431AbXIGRLq (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:11:46 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:58297 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965427AbXIGRLq (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:11:46 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Theodore Tso Cc: Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] Linux Kernel Markers - Architecture Independent Code In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:04:45 EDT." <20070907160445.GB8911@thunk.org> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <20070906200733.194442762@polymtl.ca> <20070906200825.893834634@polymtl.ca> <20070906160001.cfe48d78.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070906160429.629c9497.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070906163737.9cc91307.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070907160445.GB8911@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1189185054_6579P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:10:54 -0400 Message-ID: <6791.1189185054@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1189185054_6579P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:04:45 EDT, Theodore Tso said: > This was proposed by Andrew and discussed at the Kernel Summit; the > basic idea is that it is a formal indication that the person has done > a *full* review of the patch (a few random comments from the local > whitespace police don't count), Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on 64-bit, locking issues, etc), or other commentary that *should* be addressed before it gets merged? I'd like *some* way to tag a patch with "I had an issue with V1, but the author addressed it to my satisfaction in V2".... (Note that includes "the author convinced me the patch was right and I was wrong"...) --==_Exmh_1189185054_6579P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFG4YYecC3lWbTT17ARAvWIAJ4/rMZwAx+D+4eP7AzoO/3Sfli20QCZAWRw +CweplZatvGS+L1u/R10tuQ= =ttFp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1189185054_6579P--