On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:01:19 +1000, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:28:38AM -0200, Fernando Carrijo wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:31:16 +0100, Simon Thum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > here's some hopefully final embellishments. > > > > > > Fernando, thanks for reviewing. If you wish a more formal attribution, > > > please send your reviewed-by tag. > > > > I refrained from the idea of engraving a reviewed-by tag for believing > > that such a practice was reserved for those whose voices were louder > > than mine. Anyhow, here it goes... > > > > Reviewed-by: Fernando Carrijo <[email protected]> > > not really, if you reviewed it then you can state so. The definition of the > tag is: > "Reviewed-by: A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is > an appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious > technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer > a Reviewed-by tag for a patch." > > From http://wiki.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/SubmittingPatches, > which itself is partially copied from the kernel's > Documentation/SubmittingPatches. > Bonus points for spotting which word needs to be replaced with "X Server". > > Cheers, > Peter >
Hi Peter, I've been lurking around for long enough to get somehow acquainted with the discussions regarding the meanings of s-o-b & friends. But even so, I use to feel kinda guilty for sending you busy people fixes as trivial as s/kernel/X Server/, followed or not by reviewed-by tags. It's nice to know that you are open for those modest contributions. Cheers, Fernando Carrijo. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
