Hello Mark and Lee, On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 wondered what to do for this corner case... since I also didn't want you to tell me why I didn't carry the provided Acked-by tag :) >> 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. > Thanks a lot for clarifying your process. I'll remember to drop your Acked-by tag if the same situation happens in the future for patches to your subsystems. >> 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. Yes, I know you add Acks for your own reference to know that the patch has been already reviewed/acked by you. So I'll continue to carry them for patches to the MFD subsystem. Best regards, Javier
