| 1 |
On 02/10/2011 10:01 PM, Krzysztof Pawlik wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't exactly see how what you've written is of any relevance to the main |
| 3 |
> point of this - the original issue was *extremely* simple: whenever maintainer's |
| 4 |
> (active, inactive, last maintainer, whatever) ACK should be mentioned in the |
| 5 |
> message that ends up in p.mask -- according to me and Andreas: yes. Look at it |
| 6 |
> as a kind of 'Signed-Off'. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
it's already ack'd by 185475, 211262, 247268, 276220, 287751, 293501, |
| 9 |
298109, 301729, 308801, 311763, 311765, 328691, 340605, 348483, 352506, |
| 10 |
237366, and 250054. no futher justification is required. |
Archives