On Mon 2017-07-31 16:44:49, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
> > > > I'm troubled by what seems
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:34:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
> > > I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO)
> > > misuse of the
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
> > I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO)
> > misuse of the "Signed-off-by:" in commits.
> >
> > I've now either been asked to sig
Hi!
> I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
> I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO)
> misuse of the "Signed-off-by:" in commits.
>
> I've now either been asked to sign off RFC quality patches "because its
> quicker" on more than one
Hi folks,
I've been away from kernel development for a bit, but I've returned and
I'm troubled by what seems to be an entrenched and widespread (IMO)
misuse of the "Signed-off-by:" in commits.
I've now either been asked to sign off RFC quality patches "because its
quicker" on more than one occasi
5 matches
Mail list logo