From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 6AcnKthxsGRMuiAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:51:20 -0400 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=j6UGSwFK; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A7E4B1E0BD; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.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 89E981E0AC for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77A83858002 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:51:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C77A83858002 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1689285077; bh=VhH3Rn0jKPRNMvXrXlSYXdv+RIQXW7ZixHtIwXYEOl4=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=j6UGSwFKdC3kscElO1L7lZp+PHHQC0szLAqpgFADfdYf3GIS+EgM6sqEPp+dRnXQG VuCVADDPzqn2UGrWKyigmhnWccJmbOwwGX06HZSZmJRIJ79xLSLIaEP33AQJzoxcDH oLTyS80stnWF8q4LHz8mZtO1cB1gqoLFkncLfsE0= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5449B3858CDB for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:50:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5449B3858CDB Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (66.187.233.73 [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-350-Z5Mtfe26N-yOQKsbOldQAw-1; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:50:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Z5Mtfe26N-yOQKsbOldQAw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0732F3C0E444; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f37-zws-nv (unknown [10.22.17.111]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7219111E3EA; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 21:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:50:47 -0700 To: Bruno Larsen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@palves.net, aburgess@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, tom@tromey.com, tdevries@suse.de, ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] update MAINTAINERS file with git trailers Message-ID: <20230713145047.358e2c4a@f37-zws-nv> In-Reply-To: <20230713105651.2281574-2-blarsen@redhat.com> References: <20230713105651.2281574-2-blarsen@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org 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: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:56:51 +0200 Bruno Larsen wrote: > Right now there is one big unanswered question: Should we have a > specific tag to explicitly signal when a patch has been partially > approved? Eli asked for it to avoid people mechanically reading tags > from thinking that a patch has been fully approved when it was only > partial. I don't think we need a tag for this. Since we review and/or approve patches via email, I think some additional text stating which portions were reviewed or approved is sufficient. Suppose I'm an area maintainer or a global maintainer who has confident knowledge of a particular area. I might then do something like this: For the mn10300 architecture portions: Approved-by: Kevin Buettner Only the Approved-by tag would be added to the git trailer, but it's clear to anyone involved in the approval process that I haven't approved the patch in its entirety, only certain parts. If I were to review the rest of the patch, but not approve it, I see nothing wrong with also saying: For everything else: Reviewed-by: Kevin Buettner I also see nothing wrong with qualifying the 'Reviewed-by' or 'Acked-by' tags. Yes, we might end up with a patchwork of reviews, but we might also get more people involved with the review process, which I think would be a good thing. If we really want to include the portions reviewed in the trailer, then I suggest extending the format of the trailer, perhaps like this: Approved-by: Kevin Buettner (mn10300 only) Kevin