On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:49:56 -0700 Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > > This seems inconsistent with the usage of this tag in the Linux kernel > > development process. If we're going to continue shoehorning our project > > into that process, we should avoid such inconsistencies, or it'll be > > even worse than merely imposing a process from a different project > > without serious consideration of the goals and properties of that > > process and whether those are desirable for our project. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to make it inconsistent; can you explain what you > think the Acked-by line means? > The Acked-by lines are only as relevant as the one who give's them out. If you have a Patch that touches the input-subsystem, and you are not the input-subsystem-maintainer but want to take the patch because some work of your's depends on it or something other, then you have to get the Acked-by line of that maintainer. So everybody is free to give out Acked-By lines... but they only make sense, when the patch in question touches someone else's code and you bypass that maintainer because of logistical reasons. Cheers, Flo _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
