From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c713fc7a-d2ac-8e7f-0153-7ae24c992fee@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
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 <EMAIL>"
> 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 <EMAIL>" -- 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-21 17:38 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 [this message]
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
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=c713fc7a-d2ac-8e7f-0153-7ae24c992fee@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--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).