RE: [PATCH 2/2 version 2] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp

Carl Love via Gdb-patches
2023-01-17T19:31:32Z

Tom:

On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 1/17/23 18:03, Carl Love wrote:
> > Tom:
> >
> > On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 17:55 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > AFAICT, this has been committed just now.
> > >
> > > I'm having difficulty finding an approval, did it happen maybe
> > > offlist?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > - Tom
> >
> > I just committed it based on Bruno's reply.
> >
> > > The patch has been tested on X86 and PowerPC with no
> > regressions.
> >
> > I will reiterate that I don't know much about PPC, so the best
> > I can do
> > is check for style and tests, but apart from a few minor nits
> > inlined,
> > it looks ok
> >
> > Tested-By: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
> >
> > I thought that was an approval to commit. Is it not?
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> sorry, AFAIU it's not. Bruno has been helpfully reviewing your
> patch,
> but AFAIK he cannot approve it.
>
> This is an easy mistake to make though, given the used formulation,
> it's
> not the first time it happened, and it's one of the reasons we're
> trying
> to move towards replying with the Approved-By tag to make approval
> more
> formal, explicit and unambiguous.
>
> FYI, I'm working my way toward reviewing these patches, and have
> regained access to my usual powerpc machine, so I'll try to
> reproduce
> the issue you're seeing.

OK, thanks for the clarification on the process. In the past, I have
had people explicitly state in their reply that they could not approve
a patch but were just reviewing and commenting on it.

I will be sure to look for the "Approved-By tag" in the future. Sorry
for the mistake.

Please let me know if you need me to revert the patch, make some fixes,
or?

Thanks.

Carl