Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 06/12/2021 16:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.12.2021 17:21, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 06/12/2021 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 06.12.2021 17:06, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > On 06/12/2021 15:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 06.12.2021 15:28, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > I am not going to ack it but I am also not going to Nack it if another
> > > > > > maintainer agrees with your approach.
> > > > > FTAOD I'll be giving it a week or so, but unless I get an outright NAK,
> > > > > I'm now in a position to put this in with Luca's R-b.
> > > >    From the check-in policy section in MAINTAINERS:
> > > >
> > > > 4. There must be no "open" objections.
> > > >
> > > > So I think this cannot be check-in given two maintainers disagree on the
> > > > approach. That said, as I wrote earlier my condition for not Nacking is
> > > > another maintainer agree with your approach.
> > > Hmm, I did address both your and Ian's concerns in v2, admittedly by only
> > > going as far as minimally necessary. I therefore wouldn't call this an
> > > "open objection".
> > I believe my objection is still open. I still have have no way to verify
> > what you did is correct.
> >
> > For instance, the tags in patch #2 are:
> >
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191104185107.3b6330df@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Reported-by: Yu Sun <yusun2@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > [Linux commit: 8e20ba2e53fc6198cbfbcc700e9f884157052a8d]
> >
> > The tags in the Linux commit are:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Yu Sun <yusun2@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Yixia Si (yisi)" <yisi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > * The first two matches the original e-mails
> > * I couldn't find the 3rd on the ML.
> > * The Cc could be ignored
> > * The signed-off-by are I guess what you call "mechanical"
> Am I understanding right that now you're complaining about me
> having retained one tag too many? So far all discussion was about
> too few tags.
I am complaining on the fact that this is really difficult to figure out 
how you decided which tags to keep.
I will repeat what I said before, it should have been so much easier if 
you just copied/pasted the one from the Linux commit.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall