On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:51:40AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Since I'm expected to apply this I wouldn't normally expect to see my > > ack - like I say if I'm acking something for me it's normally because I > > expect someone else to actually apply it (that's the standard thing). > I don't agree with this. You provided your Ack under the assumption > that it would be applied though another tree, but there is no reason > why it would be dropped just because that is no longer the case. When I see a patch I've acked, especially one that I'd not expect to apply, I'll just delete the mail since I've already reviewed it. I get lots of such stuff that's part of a bigger series resent for whatever reason. One of the first questions I ask myself if I'm not sure why I have something is if I already handled it and if so I often stop there. This didn't happen here mainly because I remembered what the patch was, if I'd forgotten I'd probably have just discarded it for the same reason I initially acked it. Of course it's possible that that could've happened anyway but it's less likely as it's less mechanical. > It's commonplace for me to provide Acks for patches I know will > *eventually* be applied by me. Removing them when applying patches is > part of my daily routine. You're the only person I'm aware of who does this. > TL;DR: If a Maintainer (or anyone for that matter) provides a *-by > tag, it should be carried forward with the (unchanged) patch until > acceptance. Given what acks get used for (they're more of a process thing than anything else) I'm not so sure it works well for them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
