Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2017 13:06:48 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MAX77802 PMIC entry |
| |
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > 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.
> The operative words here are "I'm aware". Conversely, I know lots of > Maintainers who do this, but I guess that comes with the territory > when dealing with the types of patch-sets that I handle. Often times
Interesting... any examples? I get quite a bit of this as well as a result of regmap and regulator and I can't say it's ever come up.
> > > 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.
> I'm not entirely sure what is meant by this.
An ack is basically a step down from a review saying "I'm OK with this being applied" but not actually "I did a thorough review". That makes it a bit funny compared to a review, testing or similar. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |