On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:35:39AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday October 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi Neil.
> > >
> > >From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
> > > Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:35:39AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday October 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil.
From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
Purpose: to
On Tuesday October 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Neil.
> >
> >From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
> > Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
> >
> > Purpose: to give credit to authors
> The SCM should include this
On Wednesday October 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have
> > > > been
> > > > + communicated back to the
On Wednesday October 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have
been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am
On Tuesday October 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Neil.
From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
Purpose: to give credit to authors
The SCM should include this info and we
On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some minor rewording suggestions:
> + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
> + submitter has responded to my comments.
---
On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some minor rewording suggestions:
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
+ submitter has responded to my comments.
---
Replace
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> > > + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
> > > + submitter has responded
Hi Neil.
>
>From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
> Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
>
> Purpose: to give credit to authors
The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this
in the changelog's.
I
> > > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have
> > > been
> > > + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
> > > + submitter has responded to my comments.
> >
> > This seems more detailed that necessary. The process
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
> information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
> people in adding them.
Hmm...I was just going to go with the "because I told you so" approach
that I use with my kids.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:30:54 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:10PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > + (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
> > + public and that a record of the contribution (including my
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
>>> necessary _why_ it does so.
>> The _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully
>> explain the _what_ part.
>
>
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
>> necessary _why_ it does so.
> The _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully
> explain the _what_ part.
"What": fix
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
> > in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.
>
> I disagree. The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
> in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.
I disagree. The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
necessary _why_ it does so. The rest (e.g. the sign-off
Steven Rostedt wrote:
But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.
I disagree. The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
necessary _why_ it does so. The rest (e.g. the sign-off
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.
I disagree. The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
necessary _why_ it does so.
The _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully
explain the _what_ part.
What: fix lockup in
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
necessary _why_ it does so.
The _why_ part is more important than _what_. The diff should hopefully
explain the _what_ part.
What: fix lockup in
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:30:54 -0400
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:10PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
+ (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
+ public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
+
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
people in adding them.
Hmm...I was just going to go with the because I told you so approach
that I use with my kids. It works
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have
been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
+ submitter has responded to my comments.
This seems more detailed that necessary. The process (communicated
back /
Hi Neil.
From:The Author, Primary Author, or Authors of the patch.
Authors should also provide a Signed-off-by: tag.
Purpose: to give credit to authors
The SCM should include this info and we should not duplicate this
in the changelog's.
I know
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
+ communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
+ submitter has responded to my
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:03 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:43:10 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> > Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of
> > > the
> > > four tags we
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:16:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Tested-by: is sort of trivial for a fix patch, for example, if a bug reporter
> confirms that the proposed patch actually fixes the issue. IMHO it wouldn't
> be practical to complicate that.
>
I see two types of Tested-by.
On Monday October 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
people in adding them.
So below I present some "Purposes", YetAnotherTag, and a comment on
the RSO.
(And I'd like to
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> All of these
> +tags have the form:
> +
> + Something-done-by: Full name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To be precise:
Something-done-by: Full name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [optional random stuff]
"Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored
for now, but
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:10PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> + (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
> + public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
> + tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
> +
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:43:10 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
> > four tags we use:
>
> ...or maybe a combination? How does the following patch look as a way
> to describe
* Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:38:52 -0400
>
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a
>> patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
>> the maintainer.
>>
>> None of these are
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
> four tags we use:
...or maybe a combination? How does the following patch look as a way
to describe how the tags are used and what Reviewed-by, in particular,
means?
Perhaps
On Monday, 8 October 2007 23:38, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a
> > patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
> > the maintainer.
> >
> >
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a
> patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
> the maintainer.
>
> None of these are indicative of the authority of the person
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Acked-by:
Tested-by:
* Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
patch.
Reviewed-by:
* I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
look at it in depth
Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a
On Monday, 8 October 2007 21:26, Scott Preece wrote:
> On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> ...
> > > So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
> > > necessary testing is rather simple
On 10/8/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >snip...
> >Acked-by:
> >Tested-by:
>
> * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
> patch.
>
> >Reviewed-by:
>
> * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had
On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
> > So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
> > necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. "fixed the bug which I was
> > always able to reproduce
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A patch which is not "worthwhile" is also not "appropriate". Mere
> > correctness in a mathematical sense is not enough as technical review
> > criterion.
>
> Yes, but there's also such thing as "worthwhile removal".
Good point. So the text should
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> And it'd be nice to have a tag for those sorts of
> contributions, partly just as another way to ackowledge them.
Yes, although the primary purpose of the various tags should be to
document the quality assurance process, or how to call it.
However, what belongs into the
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:53:05PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Mark Gross wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> >> (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
> >> appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
> >> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
Mark Gross wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
>> appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel.
[...]
>> (c) While there may (or may not) be things which
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
> Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
> received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
> occasional appearance since
> >Reviewed-by:
>
> * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
> look at it in depth
I think anyone should be able to supply a Reviewed-by: tag no matter
who they are. Of course the weight that such a tag carries in the
final decision of whether or not to merge may depend on
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
>> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
>> patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog". Tested-by
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> snip...
>>
>> Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
>> four tags we use:
>
> At least formal try:
>
>> Signed-of-by:
>
> * Used by original submitter(s).
> * Also used by maintainers to
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading
> the patch." Right?
>
> IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...
>
Sure, absolutely. I never said its a substitute for review. An ugly
working patch is useful, because its the raw
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Acked-by:
> >> Tested-by:
> >>
> >
> > * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
> > patch.
> >
>
> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
>
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> Acked-by:
>> Tested-by:
>>
>
> * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
> patch.
>
Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
patch, but may
On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>snip...
>
>Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
>four tags we use:
At least formal try:
>Signed-of-by:
* Used by original submitter(s).
* Also used by maintainers to track the patch's path
(ATM, does not imply
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
> Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
> received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
> occasional appearance since
Hi Jonathan,
On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I was trying to sleep last night, it occurred to me that what we
> might need is an equivalent of the DCO for the Reviewed-by tag. To that
> end, I dedicated a few minutes of my life to the following bit of text.
> It's
Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
occasional appearance since then, but there has not yet been a
discussion of what it really means. So
Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
occasional appearance since then, but there has not yet been a
discussion of what it really means. So
Hi Jonathan,
On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I was trying to sleep last night, it occurred to me that what we
might need is an equivalent of the DCO for the Reviewed-by tag. To that
end, I dedicated a few minutes of my life to the following bit of text.
It's really
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
occasional appearance since then,
On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
snip...
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:
At least formal try:
Signed-of-by:
* Used by original submitter(s).
* Also used by maintainers to track the patch's path
(ATM, does not imply I have
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Acked-by:
Tested-by:
* Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
patch.
Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
Acked-by generally means I don't generally object to the idea of the
patch, but may not have
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Acked-by:
Tested-by:
* Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
patch.
Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
Acked-by generally
Randy Dunlap wrote:
but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any actually looking at/reading
the patch. Right?
IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...
Sure, absolutely. I never said its a substitute for review. An ugly
working patch is useful, because its the raw material for
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
snip...
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:
At least formal try:
Signed-of-by:
* Used by original submitter(s).
* Also used by maintainers to track the patch's
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
Acked-by generally means I don't generally object to the idea of the
patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog. Tested-by implies
I did
Reviewed-by:
* I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
look at it in depth
I think anyone should be able to supply a Reviewed-by: tag no matter
who they are. Of course the weight that such a tag carries in the
final decision of whether or not to merge may depend on who
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
occasional appearance since then,
Mark Gross wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
(a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel.
[...]
(c) While there may (or may not) be things which could
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
Acked-by generally means I don't generally object to the idea of the
patch,
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:53:05PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Mark Gross wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
(a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
And it'd be nice to have a tag for those sorts of
contributions, partly just as another way to ackowledge them.
Yes, although the primary purpose of the various tags should be to
document the quality assurance process, or how to call it.
However, what belongs into the
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A patch which is not worthwhile is also not appropriate. Mere
correctness in a mathematical sense is not enough as technical review
criterion.
Yes, but there's also such thing as worthwhile removal.
Good point. So the text should probably say
On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. fixed the bug which I was
always able to reproduce before) or if
On 10/8/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 8 2007 19:37, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
snip...
Acked-by:
Tested-by:
* Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
patch.
Reviewed-by:
* I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
look at it in
On Monday, 8 October 2007 21:26, Scott Preece wrote:
On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. fixed
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Acked-by:
Tested-by:
* Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
patch.
Reviewed-by:
* I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
look at it in depth
Uhm, no. There is no reason an unimportant person couldn't review a
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Uhm, no. There is no reason an unimportant person couldn't review a
patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
the maintainer.
None of these are indicative of the authority of the person acking,
On Monday, 8 October 2007 23:38, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Uhm, no. There is no reason an unimportant person couldn't review a
patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
the maintainer.
None of
Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:
...or maybe a combination? How does the following patch look as a way
to describe how the tags are used and what Reviewed-by, in particular,
means?
Perhaps the
* Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:38:52 -0400
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Uhm, no. There is no reason an unimportant person couldn't review a
patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to
the maintainer.
None of these are indicative of the
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:43:10 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:
...or maybe a combination? How does the following patch look as a way
to describe how the tags
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:10PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
+ (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
+ public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
+ tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
+
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
All of these
+tags have the form:
+
+ Something-done-by: Full name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be precise:
Something-done-by: Full name [EMAIL PROTECTED] [optional random stuff]
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored
for now, but you can
On Monday October 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
people in adding them.
So below I present some Purposes, YetAnotherTag, and a comment on
the RSO.
(And I'd like to add
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:16:26PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Tested-by: is sort of trivial for a fix patch, for example, if a bug reporter
confirms that the proposed patch actually fixes the issue. IMHO it wouldn't
be practical to complicate that.
I see two types of Tested-by.
1) As
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:03 -0700
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:43:10 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of
the
four tags we use:
...or maybe
86 matches
Mail list logo
