"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The patch got an Ack from Christian.[1] The patch submitter is supposed to add > trailers like `Acked-by` in subsequent versions according to SubmittingPatches. > But this one went straight from proposal to `next` as far as I could see. Straight is a relative term. You could have said "ah, thanks for an ack, here is a resend" before I queued, provided if Christian sent his ack quicly enough. Or if Christian ack'ed before I queued the patch (and provided if I saw it), I may have added it while queuing. But the thing is, people work in parallel and in different timezones, especially for a trivially correct and good patch, things may not move sufficiently slowly to allow that to happen. And it obviously is a good thing to allow trivially correct and good changes faster to 'next' with least amount of bureaucracy ;-) So I wouldn't worry much about missing Ack here or there, especially for something that is simple and non-controversial. One thing you can do to stop the train is to send a note saying "oh, please hold and do not merge this to 'next' yet, since I have second thoughts", before the merge happens, but you obviously have the same problem that the world around you are also moving ;-). Thanks.
