On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:44:55PM -0600, Tyler Hicks wrote: > On 2015-01-22 10:12:25, John Johansen wrote: > > Sorry this took so long. I have gone through all the patches including > > the first 10 that I dumped on Tyler, those all looked good to me but I > > am not going to stick an acked-by on patches I already have a signed-off-by > > on. > > There is a lot to digest and the time that I sent them out was less than > ideal since the holidays were approaching. > > I agree that acked-by does not make sense for where we already have our > signed-off-by. > > > > > Tyler your changes to those patches look fine, and I think our dual > > signed-off > > is enough for those. > > I thought that dual sign-off was sufficient, too. If anyone has a > problem with that, please speak up and start reviewing. ;)
Dual signed-of-by is indeed sufficient. If an original author of a patch is unhappy with the direction of the refinements, they should speak up by either NACKing the newer version or at the very least asking for their signed-off-by statement to be removed; otherwise, their implicit approval stands. (Reviewing is a difficult enough task that I don't want to encumber it with much more process, or it will just serve as more incentive to not review patches. The end result that I desire out of our signed-off-by/acked-by statements/processes is that we have at least two people who stand behind each change, with exceptions where appropriate.) -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
