From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id iDTkIiuvMmMjuQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:07:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8A43F1E112; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:07:07 -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=PoKeBvBn; 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 B07B71E0D5 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49472385843A for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:07:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 49472385843A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1664266025; bh=RKqyYycQczu6DxPrb7DMV5Z/VbprPM3rlNUHWCJ/pR4=; 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=PoKeBvBnXubdkQywyb4xkNSmqSrBJcAXszM9QroCxpHfCkhGS5+dXqrNzT4jJbYB6 CyPlQ0YUv5YlKTMs4Q4arKSrKnKuli2FesQbAeWBhieefDEVHOoY5CkYus6uol2qKA XsXOcWOZ8Vm4jVvGlumUl/IHIKI6fEtlEN6E2Kv8= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A5E3858CDA for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:06:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 09A5E3858CDA Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-83-wFOA4a0nMzWOiFwYWFGAQQ-1; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 04:06:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wFOA4a0nMzWOiFwYWFGAQQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id r7-20020a1c4407000000b003b3f017f259so5194509wma.3 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 01:06:34 -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:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=RKqyYycQczu6DxPrb7DMV5Z/VbprPM3rlNUHWCJ/pR4=; b=wMIotGGRZ9sisyx7BZx3EWR8cBS6rpzYsfTuZBnvAYMUC6uMJwcdFVt0Br8kRqW15f S/WLOI2shPNis5YvUDrs/RVKNS8unGdKTtT6H+kuRlatnJ8vkOPFNQNm2CualYaNsYa1 IqOB/6V7wB5Ip0uU5n9Il4mlhvmGP7zRi6Sm+LrAYXJ1EwvjwKZetfwwiBKraHDRX7gq MqzhGURNzUdpYvyhgiwcHBzCkAx8gkNzf7lD4HZrljxpQb8wFNLH+xjFqujBLRwjR9gX itnp5ikMpwGWk1bZedxneNdGZBcEh+OORSAkwOjee88QvYtMxWRVmEgHmVQXkKr9imD7 dy8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0r17lfplYIP1k91TJlLLkXeoi3sdA+gOJZVPSRLRTf5eX6k9RV Vkl9hrb1prt2vpGcYfVs7e8qP5LqogGL+Gwp4fd6MSiOwc+zOfBmdzeuysqjZYAFhLYS4zIrOyi EaFKuXUKEwpg= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:54cd:0:b0:22c:8df8:62c6 with SMTP id x13-20020a5d54cd000000b0022c8df862c6mr11260055wrv.276.1664265993983; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7QK4WGmZdz6UroR/0G1KywKDaIY324X4fVfFEf4/XwbkAFoKq5BTk8Wa08QC+xZtzieM8a9g== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:54cd:0:b0:22c:8df8:62c6 with SMTP id x13-20020a5d54cd000000b0022c8df862c6mr11260043wrv.276.1664265993781; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.45] (ip-62-245-66-121.bb.vodafone.cz. [62.245.66.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d16-20020adff850000000b0022ae59d472esm1016546wrq.112.2022.09.27.01.06.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Sep 2022 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5bc9205b-65ea-4436-e9d7-2e9f70147d5d@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:06:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.1 Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. To: John Baldwin , Simon Marchi , gdb@sourceware.org References: <453759b1-1ddf-1aff-a033-6183b84a4a4d@simark.ca> <4c321d90-ca45-c3dd-27dc-cc8c74b6e999@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4c321d90-ca45-c3dd-27dc-cc8c74b6e999@FreeBSD.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: 8bit 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 Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 26/09/2022 23:32, John Baldwin wrote: > On 9/26/22 6:55 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote: >> >> >> 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! > > I'm fine with the idea.  I'm less worried about "credit" for reviewing > personally, and the suggested format seems a tad verbose perhaps vs > just formalizing "Approved", but it's probably good to have it be a bit > different from straight prose to be more explicit. Hi John, Thanks for your input! While it is a bit verbose, I didn't find it to be a problem when reading through commits that used it (on other projects) because of the tag-like formatting. It's quick and easy to identify and skip through it when looking through the commit history, and easy to automate the emitting from the reviewer side. > > It also wasn't clear to me if the intention was for the commits to > be amended with the annotations?  (I don't think it was explicitly > stated in the original mail, and I'm not sure if it was an implicit > assumption?) No, I didn't intend on amending previous commits. The main problem this change intends to solve is fixing ambiguity, and the pushed patches don't have that issue anymore. Thanking a reviewer is just one more positive side (IMHO) going forward. Cheers, Bruno