From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id m1B/E2DmMmM2zgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:02:40 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 40C4C1E112; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:02:40 -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=qyyH1Rtt; 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=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 DA6C61E0D3 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3630C385803E for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:02:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3630C385803E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1664280159; bh=Lgs9rdH0Tgg3uSh0uspDUD2ZHDqMPRjzMvJq0SJOENQ=; 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=qyyH1Rtt4owjvLOyVYcPmLhCO0qzugX2Q3IEPSyaryHAljg+mecD9dqKUqLJULPkl 7w5fc4oKMQVNm73RHvLTn3q8daOy3P9dPtl2p/0DVs0YdLRyQ+Cr8+eWrZ0PBDiK6Q z902YeNP7u2hhk/ZYayJDIjIm2TeZFoY68N1gz0Y= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6E4E38582B4 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:02:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A6E4E38582B4 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28ED01E0D3; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b2913f0-fd8c-5b48-cab3-f87b581171e1@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:02:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0 Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. Content-Language: en-US To: Bruno Larsen , John Baldwin , gdb@sourceware.org References: <453759b1-1ddf-1aff-a033-6183b84a4a4d@simark.ca> <4c321d90-ca45-c3dd-27dc-cc8c74b6e999@FreeBSD.org> <5bc9205b-65ea-4436-e9d7-2e9f70147d5d@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5bc9205b-65ea-4436-e9d7-2e9f70147d5d@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" >> 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. Err, just to be clear, we won't amend existing commits in master obviously (can't rewrite history) but future commits in master would contain those tags. This means that if you give me a Reviewed-By, I amend my local commit patch to include that trailer before pushing. Simon