From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 5ch6GwXCY2Rg8wsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:53 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 691C61E11E; Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:53 -0400 (EDT) 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=XakqaKfK; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 249A61E111 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C053857022 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 17:48:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C9C053857022 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1684259331; bh=Igs5fjccQGq6pgNiuFw4VjeRh2iO3oGvu7iPwmMDXSc=; 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=XakqaKfKcQdLWsEPJR4zSUIsCLSw8nxsTM+XMSjIxZAawgYwV5hvhcgMjehwdI5Kr 38/WDazoCwNdcitJEAtZbKbgYDvw9U8U2pfAwjci3gFEUI3HsmhiY2Te6e04JIUvPG n0s7HcDtrbpZBeLrC0HBB4sDumMhQRRReZFoIVRA= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80EE2385770E; Tue, 16 May 2023 17:48:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 80EE2385770E 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 1pyymd-00034F-3N; Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:23 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pyymc-0001m6-Hd; Tue, 16 May 2023 13:48:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 20:48:30 +0300 Message-Id: <83cz30yxox.fsf@gnu.org> To: Bruno Larsen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Bruno Larsen on Tue, 16 May 2023 18:41:55 +0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS References: <20230516143826.3431583-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <20230516143826.3431583-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <83pm70z2hr.fsf@gnu.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: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 18:41:55 +0200 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org > From: Bruno Larsen > > On 16/05/2023 18:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> + Used when a contributor has looked at code and agrees with the changes, > >> + but either does not have the authority or doesn't feel comfortable > >> + approving the patch (usually due to unfamiliarity with a certain > >> + part of the code). > > Reviewed-by is used by responsible maintainers as well. > I think I need clearer wording then. I think "both contributors and maintainers" is good enough. > > I think the above list is incomplete, because there appears to be no > > "git trailer" (why do we have to call it "git" trailer, btw? will > > that change if we ever switch to a different VCS?) for the situation > > where the responsible maintainer does approve some part of the patch, > > but not all of it (e.g., because the other parts are not in the > > expertise domain of that maintainer). I thought Reviewed-by is such a > > trailer, but based on the above I'm beginning to think I was confused. > > > I wrote the proposal based on how I think the use of trailers works on > the QEMU project (I wasn't in it long enough to be sure that I am > correct, though). My thinking was that you'd send something like > "documentation changes are approved, but someone needs to look at the > code, Approved-By ..." or something similar. That said, I just > remembered that they also use Ack-By in those situations and the > maintainer of the subsystem most affected by a change is the only one to > approve the patch, and other relevant maintainers use Ack-By (they have > a very different development workflow, with each subsystem maintainer > having their own tree and them only being merged into the master tree > periodically). I'm pretty open to suggestions, if you think using > Acked-By or some other trailer is better. That is the reason I'm doing > this :-) I don't think I'm in a position to put forward suggestions, since I'm not sure I have a good understanding of the process. I only use Approved-By when I can approve the entire patch, not just parts of it. But maybe I'm wrong in that.