On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:46:43AM +0100, Usama Arif wrote: > > > On 20/05/2025 06:14, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > NACK the whole series. > > > > Usama - I explicitly said make this an RFC, so we can see what this > > approach _looks like_ to further examine it, to which you agreed. And now > > you've sent it non-RFC. That's not acceptable. > > > > If you agree to something in review, it's not then optional as to whether > > you do it. > > It was a bit late yesterday and I completely forgot to change --subject-prefix="PATCH v3" > to --subject-prefix="RFC v3". Mistakes happen and I apologize. Ack, but in future please try to be careful about this! This obviously changes the nature of the series and important to highlight we're still in the planning stages here. > > I agreed to make it RFC and had full intention of doing that. > Would you like me to resend it with the RFC tag? There's no need, we've got discussion here already so it's sensible to keep things as-is, the series is in-effect an RFC now as it's NACK'd. > > Thanks, > Usama Cheers, Lorenzo
