X server 1.9 release thoughts

[Florian Mickler]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:49:56 -0700
Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:

> > This seems inconsistent with the usage of this tag in the Linux kernel
> > development process. If we're going to continue shoehorning our project
> > into that process, we should avoid such inconsistencies, or it'll be
> > even worse than merely imposing a process from a different project
> > without serious consideration of the goals and properties of that
> > process and whether those are desirable for our project.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to make it inconsistent; can you explain what you
> think the Acked-by line means?
> 

The Acked-by lines are only as relevant as the one who give's them out. 

If you have a Patch that touches the input-subsystem, and you are
not the input-subsystem-maintainer but want to take the patch because
some work of your's depends on it or something other, then you have to
get the Acked-by line of that maintainer. 

So everybody is free to give out Acked-By lines... but they only make
sense, when the patch in question touches someone else's code and you
bypass that maintainer because of logistical reasons. 

Cheers,
Flo