Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] gdb/record: Define new version of the record-save section
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 18:01:56 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <865x5rkkyj.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a437ffd7-4326-441a-8b0c-3d53b4292f13@redhat.com> (message from Guinevere Larsen on Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:16 -0300)

> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:16 -0300
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>
> 
> On 4/16/26 10:45 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 09:41:56 -0300
> >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >> From: Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>
> >>
> >>> Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> >>>
> >> This is confusing to me. You're supposed to add the review tag when
> >> you're satisfied with the patch and approving it to go through.
> > That's not my understanding, since I'm reviewing only part of the
> > patch.  What I usually do is say when I'm satisfied is "this part is
> > OK" or "the documentation parts are approved".
> 
> The point of the review tag is specifically to remove the ambiguity of 
> needing to look for ambiguous language like "this part is ok". As the 
> MAINTAINERS file explains
> 
> - Reviewed-By:
> 
>    Used when a contributor has looked at the code and agrees with
>    the changes, but either doesn't have the authority or doesn't
>    feel comfortable approving the patch.

Which is exactly the case: "doesn't feel comfortable approving the
patch".

> >> So, do you think the explanation I gave is enough, or do you want me
> >> to explain it more on the news file?
> > I'd prefer that you at least mention the command(s) which produce and
> > read these execution records, so that people know what is affected.
> Ok will do.

Thanks.

      reply	other threads:[~2026-04-16 15:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-15 18:58 [PATCH 0/6] Refactor the internals of record-full Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 1/6] gdb/record: Refactor record history Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 2/6] gdb/record: remove record_full_insn_num Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 3/6] gdb/record: c++ify internal structures of record-full.c Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 4/6] gdb/record: make record_full_history more c++-like Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 5/6] gdb/record: extract the PC to record_full_instruction Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-15 18:58 ` [PATCH 6/6] gdb/record: Define new version of the record-save section Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-16  6:00   ` Eli Zaretskii
2026-04-16 12:41     ` Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-16 13:45       ` Eli Zaretskii
2026-04-16 14:03         ` Guinevere Larsen
2026-04-16 15:01           ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=865x5rkkyj.fsf@gnu.org \
    --to=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=guinevere@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox