Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make sure to use tools as found by configure

[Matt Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:44:23AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:32 +0100, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 18:10 +0100, Matt Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit 7172e6e0020328d14638a0bbb66a52c905cb4b0b
> > > > > Author: Christoph Egger <chegger@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Date:   Thu Feb 7 14:29:19 2013 +0000
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Make sure to use tools as found by configure.
> > > > >     Fold inclusion of Tools.mk into toplevel Config.mk.
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <chegger@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >     Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > To be clear, I Nack'ed this in review and gave two options:
> > > 
> > > I was about to query this, thanks for clarifying.
> > > 
> > > Christoph, please be more careful in future not to misrepresent peoples
> > > review.
> > > 
> > > In general I would think it a good idea if Reviewed-by tags are posted
> > > publicly by the Reviewer on xen-devel, even if the review was carried
> > > out internally prior to posting, this would help avoid this sort of
> > > issue. Not a rule I don't think, but would help avoid mistakes...
> > 
> > I think it could help avoid mistakes, but it might cause some
> > complications. I asked Christoph to post patches with the appropriate
> > Reviewed-by:/Acked-by:/etc. line
> 
> I'm confused, you Nacked this patch and then asked Christoph to post it
> with your Reviewed-by anyway?

No, that was a misunderstanding by Christoph. I asked that he post the
patches with either "Acked-by:" or "Reviewed-by:" when those are given
in our internal review. I gave neither in this case.

> >  because I'm in a timezone that's
> > fairly far from him and most committers. I sometimes get behind on
> > xen-devel mail and it's possible that a committer might commit a
> > posted patch before I reply on the list, and we'd lose a valuable bit
> > of audit trail in the history.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are worried about here, we could always revert if
> when you catch up you aren't happy with the commit.

It's not the case when a patch needs to be rolled back that I'm
concerned about. I think that it's useful to have all signoffs in the
history so that if there's ever a question in the future about a
change an the primary author is unavailable, others can be identified
to answer questions, defend the change, etc.

Does that make sense?
--msw

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel