From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id mEu3IwPwQ2P2+QgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:12:19 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8FDA81E112; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:12:19 -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=pBCEmfxw; 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=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 4B5B01E0D3 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37DF3858D37 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:12:17 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C37DF3858D37 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665396737; bh=nsO9sQccCKQAgRqsFyetHoHjbPlCWio4cb8HY88ibp4=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=pBCEmfxwiAWHgztuzSj/2no0EXw4TYK3a3ODTuEkQd7V2MzjbbvRBgRUnxlEaFbgT meNokuEVad6uwUsP8UMnx3SDFvUxGRjIWJhXNAmPg2bei+oQaKY+EhPlC7ILGdK1vo WCWD/njfZkhpX3/PdARJ3HXDuVZmlSQvWq9w+Wtc= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2843858D37 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:11:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9A2843858D37 Received: from mail-qk1-f200.google.com (mail-qk1-f200.google.com [209.85.222.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-440-Fwe5-IahO1KbRBcu3c8X9g-1; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 06:11:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Fwe5-IahO1KbRBcu3c8X9g-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id x22-20020a05620a259600b006b552a69231so8917511qko.18 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 03:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nsO9sQccCKQAgRqsFyetHoHjbPlCWio4cb8HY88ibp4=; b=CmbTA+f/E/2yeC6a9zMMQl0jApV2Z69u6MiGn57c7ArJ0sqGazF1ZXAmGgsX7k2Co0 WHLy7oDifI4e+OkpklHtFiwqPrVnkUsSLpi4ZJAsP8zgWFd09MdvRj1e9mmC0y59wc71 wGOc2b1/nCK4gN7PapeUNdR+1LnvsCv9nfO+ifO5SKDHwIh18HxW6FLl2iN/LuI8brSs CIRcFk/wFOLRyE7urEFKSmGcWf5Z/46qGTqe1jh48HIVzonTMhn4gnpgP5mZeQVCRQ5s 0ZzHmz+BGh4619OAiwplleCX+gzapuUwDjtuY1vnO9cchRuohllIwkusZPKUgR8Mzfzr dLzg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0xgFAgG4NEqjN0tQtv4rESFNLernjWVq3f3LmAP3Gj8H7g06Gl EXDTTyx8BB/09XUIHx6EzaHoDcbvcOVjV6ZyKpGNsJuyNI7Y0pf561HeE5dV0ckL2ZWWs1p912L h9jsUUfWKIVU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:387:b0:394:7a0a:9584 with SMTP id j7-20020a05622a038700b003947a0a9584mr14502395qtx.60.1665396709340; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 03:11:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM58yM1TXfndS4yFscvaqm//WFOpK1lZhvNPVGjNpoEtxy5VcSmvd7k9CMpq2RCMTrjeId+epA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:387:b0:394:7a0a:9584 with SMTP id j7-20020a05622a038700b003947a0a9584mr14502380qtx.60.1665396709095; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 03:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.43.2.105] (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com. [213.175.37.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u21-20020ac87515000000b00391d15f13f9sm8113837qtq.11.2022.10.10.03.11.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 03:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:11:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1 Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. To: Eli Zaretskii 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> In-Reply-To: <83k058ggcp.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Bruno Larsen via Gdb Reply-To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 10/10/2022 11:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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? > 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". Cheers, Bruno