From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ODPWGGJqJWW4QioAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1696950882; bh=+tN4lA9ZYfd+YIlCrXCwZYLDMKoPs8aewJWPsHGOQ2Y=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=RCQy70I2tq5C6duD3ziw9hKlfvRUSk3gPe5BGNXqslgoJ/6vsPTvD7sWTetUKthb2 B49rTK8fZRcuUptjJh6DiNhBnMmJXu1bxH2hSzEfhDD6HUHmYZxvRNDySFQbbxDjSl bZmcEj9Ikua94cgI54T0qYdpobueGLrx+31JRF5w= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 622D61E0C1; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=bT1Qsz56; dkim-atps=neutral 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 ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314391E091 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C5D385781F for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:14:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81D923858402 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:14:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 81D923858402 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1696950867; bh=+tN4lA9ZYfd+YIlCrXCwZYLDMKoPs8aewJWPsHGOQ2Y=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=bT1Qsz56ZDkHDzrsVUo9Vx0DYlHDHO46muvMFgRehrrsBuIMG4xT7xh9VNxeqqGKW 6A7+O5f69btfCVBGYKEutikrlGYvg4eQsheGk+JunMsX185EYgosIPC9Z7828MoTtf uNrlZEY+M0tGgASG3q3HJewghBPbbLmBbwkWoz7I= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C38FB1E091; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7993630f-6098-4d81-af02-ad4f73c20f1c@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS Content-Language: fr To: Guinevere Larsen , Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org, Pedro Alves References: <20231005113533.86112-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005113533.86112-3-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005105530.63d11345@f37-zws-nv> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP 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: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 10/9/23 05:59, Guinevere Larsen wrote: > I understand what you mean, and I see where I may have misunderstood when I said that "Acked-By" worked as partial review in QEMU. > > I'm fine with this being the default if everyone agrees with it. To summarize informally, the tags would be like this: > > * Acked-By: A maintainer of a certain area looked at the patch description and is fine with its direction. this says nothing about the quality of the code. May be restricted to some areas of the code > * Reviewed-By: A contributor has looked at the code and thinks it is good, but is not approving it for any reason. May be restricted to some areas of the code. > * Approved-By: A maintainer has looked at the code and thinks that it is ready for upstreaming. May be restricted to some areas, and may be conditional on receiving a review or ack for some area(s). I like this use of Acked-By, it matches the meaning I thought it had, based on what other projects do. It happens that we say something like "I gave it a quick look and it looks fine to me", indicating that we did not do a thorough review, in which case Acked-By is appropriate. Simon