On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> Yes, sorry, thought that was implied since I had given it earlier >>> pending my (as it turns out, incorrect) suggestion. >> >> A number of people have been confused (rightly so) by "LGTM" implying >> Reviewed-by. Let's please not ever start implying or inferring >> Reviewed-bys from anything less than a reply actually saying >> Reviewed-by in the format expected to go into the commit message. > > Well, I had supplied it before, conditional on a (seemingly at the > time) trivial change. Then I agreed that my condition was wrong. I > thought that qualified as "good enough" to not have to re-give the > R-b.
Ah, right. I only saw your second reply, and not the first with the R-b. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
