From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 8AwJBKgdRGN8DgkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:27:04 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0BE8A1E112; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:27:04 -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=CQjRiVUt; 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=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from 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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9EB71E0D5 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6628E3857346 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:27:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6628E3857346 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665408423; bh=ilze0qpNBQFpRJK2dVwy283LcuifrLAoCXCTt9e5De0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=CQjRiVUtpOs+e2mJfY26pU15fkJg3+Xv2AIFJdc+3DGTV9fwVVRS9Rjm3HopUPdAC FIb7rs+TdwMPnGLghDnk9qANLXs6zOSh7MORnBb3CxakBKDcnsVtFD1s1wXsQ2/Yny zBR/U+MetViW/wWvSdrm59cyPWUneEz8bddx0FVk= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25A933858439 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:26:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 25A933858439 Received: from mail-qv1-f72.google.com (mail-qv1-f72.google.com [209.85.219.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-660-OTu-Ejy-MROEZKqhVGwFgw-1; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:26:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OTu-Ejy-MROEZKqhVGwFgw-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f72.google.com with SMTP id kr13-20020a0562142b8d00b004b1d5953a2cso6221899qvb.3 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ilze0qpNBQFpRJK2dVwy283LcuifrLAoCXCTt9e5De0=; b=bqaE0aYmk5n40G+Hcjdi93h2M1YHWDsPLDtiFrUfsNdMqWOr7gfFhxojO0brbTs5M/ wxbDgrNb2dqxHWy8C/zSQp3BsuPNpQlvlNPTrPXPUONaNnxmgxmLbg980NvzgmTrqm22 TRSrJk3aco7X2TLBnzBb3Lk6akvboz760hhI6q49Ae6cCDGZZXZ4PGdn2lR64s6Z8cp3 AGUkCAYhK3i2r7CSynrLaV/mTvGU3IPz22EhgTH7rrko1PomQXvESzeGUa1dr1rUwlZI iMMrt9qxLZ7z08maiDrXK5FPqoOv3mspTZnMHjyDx9dNC2Agoy/iu/rF7n1f7oKYCGXs dRtw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2EV0te78jCm5PajcMYRzT2Wp5txlgBGzELpfiHGUQMKvucvNxm +6zrfRh6JlGXmfByOtw02wBOtuZoAL8OZ/3iGVcyGsqJKpo00qumpVDrKk6nBj4QAaBovyeorjS w//SCBMQ5ONg= X-Received: by 2002:a37:5f05:0:b0:6ec:59fe:1ab4 with SMTP id t5-20020a375f05000000b006ec59fe1ab4mr4277643qkb.111.1665408395980; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7rM0OraBx95lMV5w74wOM3CHqcvHDi82b5eNmKucn5I4fhY4GkK7rxNE9WEe4EI6r1jMw/QA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5f05:0:b0:6ec:59fe:1ab4 with SMTP id t5-20020a375f05000000b006ec59fe1ab4mr4277632qkb.111.1665408395773; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.43.2.105] (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com. [213.175.37.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r22-20020ae9d616000000b006ed30a8fb21sm2273842qkk.76.2022.10.10.06.26.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <222feff2-4453-1f61-9f55-07249c0b8e43@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 15:26:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. To: Eli Zaretskii References: <754258e5-b9b7-0785-5580-f8f54e7ad6ad@simark.ca> <83y1tqltpp.fsf@gnu.org> <790305bd-9cdf-9dbc-6b8e-b55f1f70258f@simark.ca> <834jwelc26.fsf@gnu.org> <1c95e1f9-db82-a60e-7d4d-21eaea4435db@redhat.com> <83k058ggcp.fsf@gnu.org> <83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org> <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> <83fsfvhlbr.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83fsfvhlbr.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Bruno Larsen via Gdb Reply-To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 10/10/2022 15:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200 >> Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org >> From: Bruno Larsen >> >> On 10/10/2022 13:27, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:11:46 +0200 >>>> Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org >>>> From: Bruno Larsen >>>> >>>>> I'm not clear what I should do when I approve just part of a patch. >>>>> It is frequently the case that a patch includes both code and >>>>> documentation, and I'm approving just the documentation part(s). Is >>>>> that item 1 or item 2? or something else? >>>>> >>>> It's a bit up to you, if I'm honest. I would default to telling you to >>>> use Reviewed-by, to avoid confusion, but if you want to say that the >>>> "documentation parts are Approved-by", I am fine with it. >>>> >>>> Just let me know if you decide to go with the second, so I can mention >>>> in the wiki something like "make sure all of your patch is approved >>>> before pushing". >>> I don't mind either way. This whole thing is a service to others, so >>> I'll do whatever people prefer. Let me just point out that my >>> situation is not too unique: several other maintainers can approve >>> only parts of patches. >> Ah, so I'll suggest that you approve the documentation changes, and I'll >> mention that some approvers may sometimes only approve part of the >> patch, so one should make sure the whole patch is approved before pushing. > I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that I should not use _any_ tag > at all, when the patch includes more than just documentation? Sorry for making things even more confusing. I meant that you use Approved-by tags. What I was getting at was that the wording I have been using until this point was "if you get any Approved-by, it is ready for pushing", and that needs to be changed to "be sure that you have received Approved-by for all the code, in case a maintainer only approved parts of your change", or something of the sorts. Still working on that... Cheers, Bruno