New development model check-in.

[Keith Packard]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:54:52 +0100, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:

> That's not what I said. I gave an Acked-by: line on the condition that a
> specific minor change was made to the patch. I've seen this done a
> couple of times for the Linux kernel, so it must be good, right?

Right, that's a fine approach, what is needed as a follow up is the
patch with the changes incorporated *with the Acked-by line included*,
which I don't think I've seen. Perhaps we just aren't making it clear
that people should feel free to vacuum up Reviewed-by: and Acked-by:
lines from mail and insert them into their patches before posting
updates.

Let's figure out how to make EXA development not suck; aside from that,
I'm happy with how the rest of the server is going.

--
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091118/be543596/attachment-0001.pgp