From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95814 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2017 17:06:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 95772 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2017 17:06:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:sk:gdb@sou, H*M:1e8f, judgement, credit X-HELO: mail-qk0-f196.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f196.google.com) (209.85.220.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:06:49 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f196.google.com with SMTP id 17so11195506qkq.8 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vuz2CseFRPZJcDfKeAfZybKPJbX3CqKhsw7QcG5B3eo=; b=EqWFUa9fs4mHUf5g+oQGJkc41jHnB1rea8QEIe0jXk/b/gwdHjilTJQOb4VSRcsprQ HEgI90mUiAE2He5LsJFd8hucwuz2GaO9hzvgnqYhT/K4UPt5xD1LR05d24uzhWO/v8An Rin4A0BFqV8NXOixpTX26WYLl4Hh3kk2+COjYEiBzZ85HZiaxUQaCcCX+oRVpfCFI+bF CqTpB2jBMD8+RcPp743rery5f8ZbXk6IuFAsEfG9W/WUDBvo5lR29LwbPwjI8pJYJih5 H2YH0hXVE/LTrZ3bjewIqsVM3FKUayDYQOWwc+EwiE0y1LPQBwwbKpM2ByCV3+r3H3WD 7FKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXwbyBwf3w2fYcPUF7jtyQ1o/y1VW7Uo5qIAFg8HBFvePQcNeZP pM73qrEud31NrCa9Nuktk+AW4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R0kVlqlu43riTlA3UqZxuLeCQAGKkSFeycINZFWERPIvHzHESozGuSzfuCn2CLv9FLJ7E8Iw== X-Received: by 10.55.20.205 with SMTP id 74mr2787952qku.66.1508432807760; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.150.73.190] ([184.151.231.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n76sm9189839qkn.85.2017.10.19.10.06.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc. To: Joseph Myers , Thomas Schwinge Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Biener , gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <347AE883-971C-447C-AB07-43F7F70F25D3@gmail.com> <4056e466-3055-455b-9922-55497d21fd80@redhat.com> <87tvzuk29t.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87376zja8d.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87shefi100.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: <6e450f2e-b34c-1e8f-2f57-b510cbbcf783@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia, >> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose. ;-/ >> >> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those >> interested have a convenient handle to use, >> . > > That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers. > But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely > (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very > limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set > of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit). It doesn't cover > reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate > to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a > review approving the entirety of a patch as posted. If the aim is credit, > a substantially different specification is needed. This is the purpose of Acked-by: ... Which we could also include. linux/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst ... Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing list archives. ... -- Cheers, Carlos.