From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id mPzGJtwQRGOXBwkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:32:28 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9B9F91E112; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:32:28 -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=KOai6XyO; 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 5A12C1E0D5 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE133857BB0 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:32:27 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9AE133857BB0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665405147; bh=V9KvcD7V8aRWeKEa2ZPQQCMJQh8JWc3utgYsxzXaT6k=; 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=KOai6XyOwf5Uh3RfXfkj7C7lvCACebLH+/JgMOtXVyxcbyNVsBg/uIkn6DN7nvvtJ ESmkNYjA8Kb9w36v9zSbYZqvAOt6qPO6zs3jM3Wc9vyOI9iqQjbV/pHwDHLbsAo5/w toiadBS1s09ixM4pEuDx8E8R6azE/VGWVpc/Z7pM= 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 C81823858D37 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:31:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C81823858D37 Received: from mail-qk1-f200.google.com (mail-qk1-f200.google.com [209.85.222.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-620--RVNVHQaPWmbpyVmeVIXog-1; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:31:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -RVNVHQaPWmbpyVmeVIXog-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id o13-20020a05620a2a0d00b006cf9085682dso9067877qkp.7 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:31:57 -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=V9KvcD7V8aRWeKEa2ZPQQCMJQh8JWc3utgYsxzXaT6k=; b=1RKoMzmz24uRCX8FNPUl7Y5tMlClT3jeTa7m0DHhAPbdO+fA3hQNqz6ybnXtxQYAJH /9rgiIkGL2lf8FwpkUQHp1XtLzgThSxg9Ql4YIJbyT6tOFsdoqrj9OfqLG/cC7BCEKR6 q4lYHgEIj+fvZxRH2rfRUSqPjyC3a/El6QAWRNy5xRJp/QfwlbpQCnGevJDF7SkWBPed qm+SHv+Ekb6GlWAq4j8ivauZPEJD/21zFnCDVj2/3ee7NMYB54Vo7LtETqPEnUmbIB1k TaGvTM+xnVxnnYQfuSIBmHkEFGndorC6Plr0sgHJcQ2mbLBQSzba+ehOlQGOn9uCT50Q HHqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1d3+bct0L2JK/+lfnrIZ3yy0waEfHHIM8QouOeAXoGmDNHIJd0 gvENnjKRr+FxAx6ECkm5wdL9pGVjIm8RNk4EXhyBPttvmMYV7t15KWHZ5BaKECTZUlhZcusGEIt c1bSoehqkZKg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21cc:b0:4b3:eead:ce0f with SMTP id d12-20020a05621421cc00b004b3eeadce0fmr6815618qvh.92.1665405116945; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:31:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5qkdsGMhybOwKgWOYoKiqGujUfZMARJ+MZMKaUh4zCGNDCEGSoMwwSlpoNoIzplOIHJyGnxA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21cc:b0:4b3:eead:ce0f with SMTP id d12-20020a05621421cc00b004b3eeadce0fmr6815601qvh.92.1665405116670; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:31:56 -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 de13-20020a05620a370d00b006b9bf03d9c6sm9708570qkb.104.2022.10.10.05.31.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +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> In-Reply-To: <83h70bhqbe.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 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. Cheers, Bruno > > Thanks. >