> > Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself > > who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and > > found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on > > 64-bit, locking issues, etc), or other commentary that *should* be > > addressed > > before it gets merged? I'd like *some* way to tag a patch with "I had an > > issue with V1, but the author addressed it to my satisfaction in V2"....
> I think that'd be Reviewed-By. While you are not part of the smokey room > cabal you have shown technical expertise in various areas so it seems > perfectly fine to have reviewed-by from you. The fix vs a previous version > should probably be just in the text with a paragraph ala: > Issue blah in a previous version as found by Valdis Kletnieks has been fixed > by doing foo. At ksummit Andrew also mentioned including a link to the relevant mailing list discussion too, and I think this would be a good example of when that would be useful. - R. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
