From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23784 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2017 17:38:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23773 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2017 17:38:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HTo:U*thomas, behaviours, H*f:sk:87zi9oj, H*i:sk:87zi9oj X-HELO: mail-qt0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-qt0-f179.google.com) (209.85.216.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:38:33 +0000 Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x54so6678607qth.12 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zX0LfnkPlZCCwbVniJcm+2lhOF96HsjMglwpvVw8tMI=; b=HecSKZYRDwK1z3ZrZwXn0HE8LK3QdzqtI5EbaDiq7rTf7ZezNpU/MhQtAf+LZSoZ28 N9Gs8AYr1hamhQXQ28s3Az2UE0Wh3QRYULgnamALvWG3DiS2nA2zTAwBY9Sr6xy9e6FD naaAbkTY0KjBUH6yTRs6y/Sxlk9ZeDZAV+gxQ+InY15sEu2tjBkaPAL+FVCT05slkRxW jX6aWbMzF3yNBwm4tl19Q+frAPrT9E7Y+5Kokfr4pMeUlzuQbSJbrtncM6JlgqNI/N0p hqrVwh5C5BGmB5tjvEBSh4rGp5RPyV8FmVEPmJqIOTX8TSv3eYqPHsNUfUQtDggdA0Z7 FdCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUi3zfJpP/uaHGL5vT9oVI//5sv8Tf0S+/tRUCAZt/KDJVBk2vc2 18OuRyqr88CyPsDJM9Pb95H8vg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBUhq+pgn1N217g03+W0iFav7fuwfCkRlaAthks34CxTHceSGAK+M70ECqrm0TGrYVDUtQG6Q== X-Received: by 10.200.49.87 with SMTP id h23mr4584861qtb.13.1506015511281; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.222.10] ([184.69.210.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r22sm1341149qtj.94.2017.09.21.10.38.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc. To: Thomas Schwinge , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On 09/21/2017 10:50 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > So my question is, if I've gotten a patch reviewed by someone who is not > yet ;-) familiar with that new process, and I nevertheless want to > acknowledge their time invested in review by putting "Reviewed-by" into > the commit log, is it fine to do that if the reviewer just answered with > "OK" (or similar) instead of an explicit "Reviewed-by: NAME " > statement? You should instead ask the author to give their "Reviewed-by:" and point out what the Reviewed-by statement means. > That is, is it fine to assume that our current patch review's standard > "OK" (or similar) answer matches the more formal "Reviewer's statement of > oversight"? Not yet. > Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly > stating "Reviewed-by: NAME " -- or maybe not, because "OK" is just > so much easier to type... All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review. It will be your own personal comments, your reminder, your leading by example, that will change behaviours. -- Cheers, Carlos.