Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758950Ab0D3R6Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:58:25 -0400 Received: from fallback.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.13]:45038 "EHLO fallback.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933563Ab0D3RyO (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:54:14 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2786 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:54:13 EDT Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:28:35 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Tejun Heo , lkml , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial: use (C) instead of \251 Message-ID: <20100430092835.GI11032@elte.hu> References: <4BD80037.9060704@kernel.org> <20100430075510.GA21105@elte.hu> <20100430083720.GA3318@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.1 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0263] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1396 Lines: 38 * Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Well, Paul himself stated that according to their lawyer department, > > > "Copyright" (which is there) is enough. So it made sense to remove invalid > > > (at least in some sense) character. > > > > > > Also zillion of other files copyrighted by Paul contain "Copyright (C)". > > > > > > If we really want this character there then, why not rather in UTF-8, so > > > that it works flawlessly? > > > > It might be fine but i havent seen Paul reply to this thread - and this is my > > point: _you_ should have waited for an ack from Paul (who is co-maintaining > > that file) before applying it. The commit doesnt have it: > > I got Pauls reply as "as soon as there is `Copyright', it's fine". [...] If lkml was not Cc:-ed to that reply (which appears to be the case) then it's worth asking for / waiting for an explicit ack. > [...] If I misunderstood it, sorry for that, and I'll drop the patch. > > Paul, could you please send explicit Acked-by: or Naked-by:, so that > everything is in line? And in that case my NAK is moot. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/