From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id /D+HDWjrH2VhUiYAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 07:11:36 -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=EP0yRuZ0; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1C2B01E0C3; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 07:11:36 -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 ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06FE21E028 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 07:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB9B3857353 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:11:33 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6FB9B3857353 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1696590693; bh=mGfxtFpHvBIxq5flxOX8wM4J18+lU3qMPo1gkGH2FMI=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=EP0yRuZ0/9Q31XP37pLZiDUVePTr9kJcw9nw+ja/MNCND57Z9Xg7Rl9FNfO/Jzerd 7/+65QbFCfYKU2HlGAE1u6juxAdEPzjYZIj74wTOAeXobobZGoFYV5nQEsEBvWtE1M 9iXIRVf2uM8o0rxWKNVRXqsEawO0PcUdu2MT091o= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE5A3858426 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:11:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0CE5A3858426 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qoijg-00083o-6b; Fri, 06 Oct 2023 07:11:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 14:11:20 +0300 Message-Id: <835y3k2eg7.fsf@gnu.org> To: Guinevere Larsen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <2fc45e96-1d00-076b-0dcd-37c9ca3f87f1@redhat.com> (message from Guinevere Larsen on Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:39:01 +0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS References: <20231005113533.86112-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005113533.86112-3-blarsen@redhat.com> <837co13vnz.fsf@gnu.org> <2fc45e96-1d00-076b-0dcd-37c9ca3f87f1@redhat.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, 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: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:39:01 +0200 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com > From: Guinevere Larsen > > On 05/10/2023 18:01, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> + This tag is also often described as "partial approval" > >> + Usage: "Acked-By: Your Name (area)" > > What are the possible "area"s? And how to indicate more than a single > > area? > "area of GDB" is used throughout the maintainers file without being > specified anywhere, such as when explaining "Authorized Comitters": >   - The Authorized Committers. > >     These are developers who are trusted to make changes within a specific >     area of GDB without additional oversight. > > And all throughout the "Responsible maintainers" section. So I think it > is understood well enough, especially since it is expected that the > reviewers are the ones who should know if the patch touches multiple > areas and so on. Fine by me, but then I think the text describing the tags should say explicitly that the areas are those mentioned elsewhere in the document. > > And a more general question: when the review comments are minor, we > > are used to say something like "okay with those nits fixed", meaning > > that there's no need for posting another version of the patch before > > committing it "with those nits fixed". Is this an > > Acked-By/Approved-By or Reviewed-By? > > The tags are just ways to make your intent obvious. If you were > approving the patch "with the nits fixed", you use Approved-By, if you > were approving only parts of the patch, use Acked-by, and if you think > the patch is ok but can't/won't approve, use Reviewed-By. I think this should also be in the document explicitly. Thanks.