On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 04:12:47PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:25:30PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > Also, I guess that a patch with 3 signed-off-by stamps shouldn't > > really need an additional reviewed-by stamp, right? So maybe this > > should just be merged. The sob stamps are because of the rebases in -internal. I've made it practice to not just augment the patch revision log, but also add my name somewhere so that blame can be assigned. But that doesn't mean I've actually reviewed the beast at all complete, just that I've made some adaptions to make it work again on upstream. For this case here where Damien completely rewrote the patch the self-r-b is kinda pointless. So yeah even when the patch has been passed around a lot (and for a long time) and don't think that's a good reason not to throw review at it. Ofc this patch here is really simple ;-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
