[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9FRm8qkLRbdXq1F@mango>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:19:27 +0000
From: Oliver Mangold <oliver.mangold@...me>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] New trait OwnableRefCounted for ARef<->Owned conversion.
On 250310 1642, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:57 AM Oliver Mangold <oliver.mangold@...me> wrote:
> >
> > - Squash patch to make Owned::from_raw/into_raw public into parent
>
> In this case, given the changes are minimal (and assuming you didn't
> discuss it with Lina), I would have personally used the [ ] notation
> to explain the change from the original patch, and that's it, rather
> than a Co-developed-by tag -- but do not worry about it :)
Sure, I would agree. I was mostly wondering about how the format for that
looks. You say [ ] notation. Could you maybe give an example for that?
> Also, in general, please wait at least a couple of days or ideally a
> week between versions (unless it is urgent etc.). Otherwise, it can
> get confusing for reviewers and so on.
Ok, sorry. New to this, you know.
Best regards,
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists