From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 0eHSB2mvMWNyUwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:53 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 10EE51E11A; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:53 -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=hzg/1mKZ; 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=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 6DD391E110 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C06E3858284 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:55:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8C06E3858284 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1664200551; bh=EloTm5T8BFL+61Wg18nTHpLif4+JBNeUMwIjismvrI4=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=hzg/1mKZpyD6GEHaH+1JNpgaH3UL7hBO1BxLnHdaJ1qnUArx1ta2YlIjJBWQ/Wv9P vb6ugp9eY8zymKptOUC3YK1mvpJPOH7gx0vmg7gJcbx89+85MVUt1FbQdKpV+L5zja sY21QvfJ15qjCfmlXnw/lAVDBwkFuAEIaXujLv5c= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4281E3858CDA for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:55:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4281E3858CDA Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 523CC1E0D5; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <453759b1-1ddf-1aff-a033-6183b84a4a4d@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:55:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. Content-Language: en-US To: Bruno Larsen , gdb@sourceware.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2022-09-21 07:04, Bruno Larsen via Gdb wrote: > TL;DR: I want to introduce the usage of 3 new review tags to the GDB patch review workflow. They are: Reviewed-by, Approved-by and Tested-by. Hi Bruno, I completely agree with the proposal. I really like the fact that it makes communication less ambiguous. Following some process (or changing the process) can feel a bit heavy for long-timers, but I think it makes things much clearer for newcomers. Assuming we will go through with this proposal, it will need to be documented on the wiki so we can easily refer people to the procedure. Probably the ContributionChecklist page? https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist Will you be able to take care of this when needed (do you have write access to the wiki)? In the mean time, message to others: please let us know if you agree with this, it's difficult to know we have the support of the community if everybody silently agrees! Simon