From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7964fb3c-f360-3143-64ff-af51063b5dbe@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191641040.29258@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
>> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose. ;-/
>>
>> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
>> interested have a convenient handle to use,
>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.
>
> That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers.
> But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely
> (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very
> limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set
> of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit). It doesn't cover
> reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate
> to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a
> review approving the entirety of a patch as posted. If the aim is credit,
> a substantially different specification is needed.
If a person is requesting changes, they should after accepting the changes,
submit a 'Reviewed-by:' tag or 'Acked-by:' tag to indicate they are happy
with the results?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-19 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-21 16:50 Thomas Schwinge
2017-09-21 17:38 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-09-21 17:56 ` Richard Biener
2017-09-21 18:18 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-09-21 18:38 ` Richard Biener
2017-09-21 19:54 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-09-22 18:38 ` Thomas Schwinge
2017-10-04 13:47 ` Thomas Schwinge
2017-10-19 17:06 ` Thomas Schwinge
2017-10-19 17:08 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-10-19 22:40 ` Martin Sebor
2017-10-20 10:13 ` Joseph Myers
2017-10-20 10:36 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-10-20 10:40 ` Carlos O'Donell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7964fb3c-f360-3143-64ff-af51063b5dbe@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=gerald@pfeifer.com \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).