Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS

[Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

On 30/06/2023 23:07, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> See my comments in-line below.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:42:06 +0200
> Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> The upstream discussion also brought up the use of Acked-by, which is
>> better defined in this commit.  Finally, for completeness sake, the
>> trailers Co-Authored-By and Bug were added, even though they have been
>> in use for some time already
>> ---
>>   gdb/MAINTAINERS | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/MAINTAINERS b/gdb/MAINTAINERS
>> index 7fa608fd82c..cd9d299ea42 100644
>> --- a/gdb/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/gdb/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -43,14 +43,9 @@ 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!
>> +The word "contributor" is used in this document to refer to any GDB
>> +developer listed above as well as folks who may have suggested some
>> +patches but aren't part of one of those categories for any reason.
>>   
>>   There's also a couple of other people who play special roles in the GDB
>>   community, separately from the patch process:
>> @@ -78,6 +73,61 @@ 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.
>> +Approval 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, ask
>> +questions about a patch or say if they believe a patch is fit for upstreaming!
>> +
>> +To ensure that patches are only pushed when approved, and to properly credit
>> +the contributors who take the time to improve this project, the following
>> +trailers are used 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:
>> +
>> + - Acked-By:
>> +
>> +   Used when a contributor has taken a quick glance at a patch and agrees
>> +   with the direction outlined in the commit message, but hasn't evaluated
>> +   the code for correctness or regressions.
>> +
>> + - Tested-by:
>> +
>> +   Used when a contributor has tested the patch and finds that it
>> +   fixes the claimed problem.  It may also be used to indicate that
>> +   the contributor has performed regression testing.  By itself, this
>> +   tag says nothing about the quality of the fix implemented by the
>> +   patch.
>> +
>> + - Reviewed-by:
>> +
>> +   Used when a contributor has looked at code and agrees with the
> s/code/the code/
fixed
>
>> +   changes, but either doesn't have the authority or doesn't feel
>> +   comfortable approving the patch.
>> +
>> + - Approved-by:
>> +
>> +   Used by responsible maintainers 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.
>> +
>> + - Co-Authored-By:
>> +
>> +   Used when the commit includes meaningful conrtibutions from multiple people.
> For all of the above trailers/tags, I think it's worth mentioning what should follow
> the ":".  As I understand it, the name and email address should be specified - like
> this:
>
>      Approved-by: Jane Doe <jane@doe.org>

That's a good point. I added a section saying

Usage: "Approved-By: Your Name <your@email>"

not sure if that is the best way to do it, though...

>
>> +
>> + - Bug:
>> +
>> +   This trailer is added with a link to the GDB bug tracker for added context
> Maybe s/GDB bug tracker/GDB bug tracker bug/ ?  I.e. we want to specify a link
> to a specific bug, not a link to the top level for the bug tracking site.
good point, I changed it
>
>> +   on relevant commits.
>> +
>>   
>>   			The Obvious Fix Rule
>>   			--------------------
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
>>

-- 
Cheers,
Bruno