[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:12:27 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=2EeyQvF3gtY2MjpZQJDxVwGagS3cXTUVFohohBdYWiI=; b=eVsajxqD+U9cVO7UsPz/gRK12QwG90BknFY7OV0K1M/Vp1ETFMr0kwdSnvJOpxC1mDhE4Ys5IVZnn4JiUp9UaKNtiVLXAVGpKwoIewwXbGAPCoDZx9LhoimjaKX8IfYxtVuUfTxy7JL5GExWSzlj/pYnNO2GaFkcqSaOJUEZMUrBbjkV+c7GSSP1hzuwAfuwurJohj1E6Tqhdnz4cdX311iS2f5spRr6m59OG9FOcDGbltGZOBpLS9rol6CFl5tnKX/QWTKLRXw9ux9EBlGuLaJU1PBFMIp6ba19bhLi0/ZgwQGOMYmDq1QRRmKISYTPjisKVH31QbvipU5MB7XPZA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cwuohtX+TtOncdOXbWaV4UQOBd9dfx1yYqqiXBcKSl9J9dCZIx82GvxXjuV1sNgZtZiJZ6p6sbAThf/x4UDSsZPgXpFklYaQWzBdCj7vbLC9GPYTO5vtaNSj3++5d3WfhgMD+NurItKjz9DOVWqg3dseZxYlIV5iBoPMiB66UvhDVWrt4fLdFoFbzaReZffPeaYhrSVRwDniDDXkp8CUZpZXlFVxndiMU6aZcvKyEPe4KjHjzkE2HTIcjicNtEsgILxzncYNBQjXEAbrh0MJWdI7trXFZ9W6yk++POov/68uG0JO4h4MktBLc4iLdxaAhW0Jonh4xyKHW/rCmLblvA==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:12:45 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
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".
Jan
|
