This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:20:16 +0000
- Subject: Re: Setting up patchwork on sourceware
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140306194636 dot GB1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5319204D dot 7090802 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140307062516 dot GC1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140307145135 dot GD1722 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140318094039 dot GA8415 at domone dot podge> <20140318102227 dot GS1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <53285733 dot 9000300 at redhat dot com> <20140318145426 dot GT1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <5328642E dot 9060001 at redhat dot com> <20140321162007 dot GN1850 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403211630100 dot 4557 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <532C7C19 dot 6080207 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> If a patch was an RFC, one should mark it state=RFC, such that
> other reviewers not interested in reviewing RFCs may ignore that
> patch.
>
> If a patch was an RFC, but meant for inclusion as-is if accepted,
> then you could check it in if you had consensus, at which point
> you'd mark it state=Accepted, otherwise state=Rejected, or
> if it needed work state=Changes Requested (and the author needs
> to resubmit the new version).
>
> Does that answer your question?
Yes.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com