From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id IM92COAaRGNoDQkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:15:12 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 206871E112; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:15:12 -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=vM39qiXA; 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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 CDB5C1E0D5 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2999C3854151 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:15:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2999C3854151 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665407711; bh=I9L1ILxYenFcBdEMD9WnBWXguIxl1UWzDTxQ5HQKYGs=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=vM39qiXAJekOff+m53R9zibXj77yhnDNRJl+SvnxAhs/2S/DXsj2tv+GhVLG5zAKF 8rmMASpsXcL70M2hFBml9IAgngTWqcml8PAD2lKMhw0hg4pUx8NRpmNO9CUSFJjkKC 4/SwlCabX4u3gb2D9NKWdHOw2rG3jKl3SSGAhjGc= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA8A5385AC3F for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:14:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AA8A5385AC3F Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohscG-000209-1a; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:14:44 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4723 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 1ohscF-0001iD-AO; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:14:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:14:48 +0300 Message-Id: <83fsfvhlbr.fsf@gnu.org> To: Bruno Larsen In-Reply-To: <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200) Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. 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> <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> 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 Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200 > Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org > From: Bruno Larsen > > 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. I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that I should not use _any_ tag at all, when the patch includes more than just documentation?