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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 06.12.2021 17:21, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> 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've taken note of this. I'm afraid with the long winded discussion no
other maintainer will provide an ack. Which therefore makes what you said
above effectively a nak anyway. Unless things move in unexpected ways, I
will have to consider this series rejected then.

> 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.

See e.g.

https://yhbt.net/lore/all/20191108202754.GG18744@zorba/t/

(Andrew Morton's reply at the bottom) for where it originates.

> * The Cc could be ignored
> * The signed-off-by are I guess what you call "mechanical"

I would generally retain Reviewed-by when our code is still quite
similar to Linux'es. Acked-by are on the edge of being useful, but as
you can see I did err on the side of keeping it. As said in a number
of places elsewhere, for what I call mechanically added tags I am yet
to be told of their value (or even need) in our tree. Not the least
- as also said in reply to Ian - because we don't usually follow
Linux'es model of flowing patches through several trees, where each
tree owner would apply their S-o-b as per (c) of "Developer's
Certificate of Origin 1.1".

Jan