From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id eMoQDAeiY2Qg2AsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:32:23 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2F5E11E11E; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=jLUMfiVX; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C82D31E0D6 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8173857722 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:32:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2E8173857722 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1684251142; bh=wYXGCvfF80ojaXwA6wN4WOjmSvGDw7/JOB9R90NlxhA=; h=To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=jLUMfiVXzk1nzIjhnpkCeE1EgW1ASKmOTCsWiGvvuqgpi7qn3Yp2gn+BLAg6NsQ/d bh8Ov8cfmmxJGj6MT1ZxvyzeC3oovtRe2a+9BH4JhwqupqU76F+mUJEIDYKc0s0XFj qhFn0qdgJy6YnqRfg64qxqR5y/+yusjbFGGjmjC0= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D61385700F for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:32:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F1D61385700F Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-673-n_SRr_mvONaReZgzXsY1kA-1; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:31:51 -0400 X-MC-Unique: n_SRr_mvONaReZgzXsY1kA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC423868C95; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:31:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora.redhat.com (unknown [10.45.225.109]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231D12026D16; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:31:44 +0000 (UTC) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Bruno Larsen Subject: [PATCH 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 16:38:27 +0200 Message-Id: <20230516143826.3431583-2-blarsen@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20230516143826.3431583-1-blarsen@redhat.com> References: <20230516143826.3431583-1-blarsen@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; x-default=true X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Bruno Larsen Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" The project has been using Tested-By (tb), Reviewed-By (rb) and Approved-By (ab) for some time, but there has been no information to be found in the actual repository. This commit changes that by adding information about all git trailers to the MAINTAINERS file, so that it can be easily double-checked. --- gdb/MAINTAINERS | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/MAINTAINERS b/gdb/MAINTAINERS index 175595d5f17..ba4fac2f0d1 100644 --- a/gdb/MAINTAINERS +++ b/gdb/MAINTAINERS @@ -43,15 +43,6 @@ patch without review from another maintainer. This especially includes patches which change internal interfaces (e.g. global functions, data structures) or external interfaces (e.g. user, remote, MI, et cetera). -The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback -from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or -clarification with the intention of approving a revised version. Review is -a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB -Maintainers. Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the -relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the -mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes or -ask questions about a patch! - There's also a couple of other people who play special roles in the GDB community, separately from the patch process: @@ -78,6 +69,45 @@ consensus among the global maintainers and any other involved parties. In cases where consensus can not be reached, the global maintainers may ask the official FSF-appointed GDB maintainers for a final decision. +The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback +from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or +clarification with the intention of approving a revised version. Review is +a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB +Maintainers. Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the +relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the +mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes or +ask questions about a patch! + +To ensure that patches are only pushed when approved, and to thank the +contributors who take the time to review incoming patches, the GDB project +uses git trailers to identify who contributed and how. All patches pushed +upstream should have at least one Approved-By patches (with the exception of +obvious patches, see below). The trailers (or tags) currently in use are: + + - Tested-by: + + Used when a contributor does not want to comment on the quality + of the code in the patch, but has tested and sees no regressions on their + hardware. + + - Reviewed-by: + + Used when a contributor has looked at code and agrees with the changes, + but either does not have the authority or doesn't feel comfortable + approving the patch (usually due to unfamiliarity with a certain + part of the code). + + - Approved-by: + + Used by responsible mainainers or global maintainers when + a patch is ready to be upstreamed. Some patches may touch multiple areas + and require multiple approvals before landing (such as a maintainer only + approving documentation), it is up to the maintainer giving the approval tag + to make it clear when that a tag is not sufficient. + Responsible, Global and Official FSF-appointed maintainers may approve their + own patches, but it is recommended that they seek external approval before + doing so. + The Obvious Fix Rule -------------------- -- 2.40.1