From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qKwAMk7qQ2MZ9wgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:58 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id CAAF81E112; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:58 -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=xDgO5SSS; 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,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 895E81E0D5 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2B33856DC4 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:47:57 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AA2B33856DC4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665395277; bh=6B+UE5Pr/0USuNT4QNd0K5my2z3B9VcuwX3paTC5vQo=; 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=xDgO5SSSpoWVpQYTEqAfIz/WjRH9tsx5VwY4YcTpiXGpIYxQmUcmQjpPg2AQNKxNj ZsDDmtr8BGJ/zvi9Z8K4Oj9M/3QeO+pgOHt6ZnUnr9jky63S1nSTiumqTJ/jIT0z8R S5LCfLKX+mtvJZlNSGs/smN5Smtq5mPQpnkaJ1YQ= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D92C3858425 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6D92C3858425 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36766) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohpNh-0006bc-SZ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:29 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3607 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 1ohpNh-0006ut-B2; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:47:34 +0300 Message-Id: <83k058ggcp.fsf@gnu.org> To: Bruno Larsen In-Reply-To: <1c95e1f9-db82-a60e-7d4d-21eaea4435db@redhat.com> (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:27:03 +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> 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 11:27:03 +0200 > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > From: Bruno Larsen > > As Simon mentioned, there weren't big changes, but here's a quick cookbook: Thanks! > 1. If you have the authority to approve a patch and believe the patch > you are reviewing is ready to be merged, add the following line to your > e-mail (usually at the end): Approved-by: Your Name > > 2. If you don't have the authority to approve patches, or aren't > convinced that you know enough about the area of code to fully approve a > patch for merging, and haven't found any technical issues (i.e. > non-nitpicks) with the patch, add the following line to your e-mail: > Reviewed-by: Your Name > > 3. If you aren't sure of the quality of the technical changes, but you > have tested and verified that the patch does not add any regressions, > add the following line to your e-mail: Tested-by: Your Name > 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?