From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qJYWKAQ8ZGRLTwwAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:29:24 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A0C691E11E; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:29:24 -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=a89mLXAg; 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=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 5E0281E111 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:29:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6ED3864C5F for ; Wed, 17 May 2023 02:29:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F6ED3864C5F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1684290563; bh=gVF9kPsCeaMgCqFc7op13lbUtetY6q+aPfP3J3+gGKE=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=a89mLXAgE7JdulGLNycf1NsDeHJqxoLXdYmoLy2V5+irK5upOYfhRJs92onjUPZxK nWt/dhlhn8PgmESTQ/FsGYLIQDbTG/z/RDGR9B05zK5+vxuq8cna8DXR434yBGUTYN H9JzkQGL+6V40thL1mALEL+BR4oawFXck6gvqpec= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21DAD3858D1E; Wed, 17 May 2023 02:28:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 21DAD3858D1E Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pz6tu-0000uy-Aj; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:28:26 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pz6tr-0003Q2-0n; Tue, 16 May 2023 22:28:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 05:28:32 +0300 Message-Id: <831qjfzo6n.fsf@gnu.org> To: Simon Marchi Cc: blarsen@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <83728fde-a0e8-026b-d4d1-89975ff5ca28@simark.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Tue, 16 May 2023 15:40:38 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS References: <20230516143826.3431583-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <20230516143826.3431583-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <83pm70z2hr.fsf@gnu.org> <83cz30yxox.fsf@gnu.org> <83728fde-a0e8-026b-d4d1-89975ff5ca28@simark.ca> 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: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:40:38 -0400 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org > From: Simon Marchi > > > I don't think I'm in a position to put forward suggestions, since I'm > > not sure I have a good understanding of the process. I only use > > Approved-By when I can approve the entire patch, not just parts of it. > > But maybe I'm wrong in that. > > If this happens, I think it's fine to say "the documentation parts are > approved" and following with your Approved-By. If you want to be > extra-clear, add "but the rest needs to be approved by someone else". > The patch will end up with multiple Approved-Bys. I'd like to hear from more maintainers that this is how they see that tag. My fear is that someone mechanically scans the discussion thread for the tags, in which case human-readable qualifications will go unnoticed. All in all, I feel that this aspect of our process is not well defined.