Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx writes:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:17:50 -0000, el_es said:
>
>> Maybe better to introduce a standard clear marker that
>> able people just respond with, to alikes of nick:
>>
>> REJECTED-by: Name <address@email.server>
>
> We already do something like this.
>
> You'll on occasion see 'Nacked-By: ...' go by when a kernel hacker
> wants to denote their displeasure with a given patch. It's up to the
> maintainer to decide how much credence to give to the Nack, based on the
> relative reputations of the person submitting the patch and the person
> nacking it, and any technical grounds given with the nack.
>
> So for instance, if Al Viro sticks a Nacked-By: on a submission, it's
> going to be *really* hard to get a maintainer to accept the patch, because
> Al has a very long history of almost always being right about such things.
Yes, but the technical grounds are still the reason the patch is not
accepted. Which is why a formalized nak is pointless. It has no value
without a verbose explanation of the technical grounds behind it. If Al
Viro, or anyone else, use a simple one-line reject message, then I am
pretty sure that is because they have already explained their objections
somewhere else. I don't think anyone can reject anything merely on their
personal reputation. And there is nowhere to record naks, so a standard
label just isn't needed.
Rejecting is completely different from e.g. Acked-by, which both is a
complete explanation ("I am fine with this patch as it is") and is
recorded for future reference in the commit message.
Bjørn
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
