On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: > I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main > point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever > maintainer's > (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the > message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it > as a kind of 'Signed-Off'.
it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, 298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506, 237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required.
