On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:30:47PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:26:34PM +0100, Rene Kita wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 05:03:59PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 04:22:53PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > This improves readability, and makes it more type safe (wmemcpy(3) > > > > doesn't use void*). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> > > > > Cherry-picked-from: neomutt.git 7df621a105e2 (2024-05-09; "Use wmem*() > > > > functions with wide-character strings") > > > > [alx: Adapted diff to mutt; changed commit message] > > > > Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> > > > > > > Don't know if we are doing acks, but if so: > > > > > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > As we are just going back to working with patches on the ML I would > > suspect that we are not doing acks. > > > > But, should we? I know how it works, but what is it good for? > > It shows that someone else reviewed and agreed with it. We use it in > kernel development to be a "less than" type of comment compared to > "Reviewed-by:". Which really, I should have given here as I did review > the thing :) > > > I guess it might make sense in big projects where some domain expert > > can ack a patch and the BDFL then sees it's OK to apply. I don't see > > that necessity for mutt. > > Hey, that's fine, but it's always good to get others to review stuff if > possible, right?
Sure. I also like getting feedback. I was more wondering if it is worth it that someone has to update the commit message to add the Acked-by or Reviewed-by. For me it is enough when I see an OK on the ML.
