Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes: > On 8/20/2026 12:10 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 8/19/2026 7:30 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> In the next commits, we'll port each architecture from Makefile to >>>>> meson, and it's easier to review those changes if we remove Makefiles >>>>> step by step. >>>>> >>>>> Tested-by: Aniket Sahu <[email protected]> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> It seems like you are the official maintainer for >>> tests/tcg/Makefile.target, thus I'm not sure what is the Acked-by >>> semantic for a component you "own". >> >> It means go ahead, I've acknowledged I've seen it although not looked >> too closely. Generally when a maintainer acks something they trust the >> poster taking it forward via their tree/pr. >> > > That's why I'm confused. In this case, I expect you will be the one > sending PR for current series, as you maintain tcg tests in general. It > can't be me, the poster, as I don't have any authority on this > subsystem.
I was under the impression with the rewrite you were going to be the maintainer going forward anyway so I don't see an issue with you sending the PR. > This series will have to go at once, we can't delegate all architectures > bits to sub maintainers. > >> Given its a temp patch for the migration I don't think you need worry >> about having more review on it. >> > > In my mind, it was expected (ideally) to have a reviewed-by on all > patches before they can be taken to a PR. I think we are almost there. I'm just looking at the prot-none workarounds at the moment. Have all the architectures been acked or reviewed by their various owners? > >>> >>> Do you expect another change to be able to send a reviewed-by? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Pierrick >> -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
