On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 09:31 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:53 +1100, Daniel Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think that's necessarily true in areas that aren't EXA; > > certainly, no-one else has complained, and the patch flow from both > > regular and one-off contributors seems to be very similar to what it was > > before the change. > > Right, the EXA changes are difficult for me to review as I don't use > this code myself. I'm not comfortable taking most of the technical > patches into the server without having some additional review, but the > review results I've been seeing are often of the form 'if you change > this, then it looks good to me'.
That's not what I said. I gave an Acked-by: line on the condition that a specific minor change was made to the patch. I've seen this done a couple of times for the Linux kernel, so it must be good, right? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
