On 06.12.2021 17:21, Julien Grall wrote: > On 06/12/2021 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.12.2021 17:06, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 06/12/2021 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 06.12.2021 15:28, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> I am not going to ack it but I am also not going to Nack it if another >>>>> maintainer agrees with your approach. >>>> >>>> FTAOD I'll be giving it a week or so, but unless I get an outright NAK, >>>> I'm now in a position to put this in with Luca's R-b. >>> >>> From the check-in policy section in MAINTAINERS: >>> >>> 4. There must be no "open" objections. >>> >>> So I think this cannot be check-in given two maintainers disagree on the >>> approach. That said, as I wrote earlier my condition for not Nacking is >>> another maintainer agree with your approach. >> >> Hmm, I did address both your and Ian's concerns in v2, admittedly by only >> going as far as minimally necessary. I therefore wouldn't call this an >> "open objection". > > I believe my objection is still open. I still have have no way to verify > what you did is correct. > > For instance, the tags in patch #2 are: > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > Reported-by: Yu Sun <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]> > [Linux commit: 8e20ba2e53fc6198cbfbcc700e9f884157052a8d] > > The tags in the Linux commit are: > > Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <[email protected]> > Reported-by: Yu Sun <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]> > Cc: "Yixia Si (yisi)" <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > > * The first two matches the original e-mails > * I couldn't find the 3rd on the ML. > * The Cc could be ignored > * The signed-off-by are I guess what you call "mechanical"
Am I understanding right that now you're complaining about me having retained one tag too many? So far all discussion was about too few tags. Jan
