On 2015-01-22 15:31:06, Steve Beattie wrote: > 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.)
This approach gets my ack. Thanks! :) Tyler
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
