From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B193858034 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:55:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 03B193858034 Received: from [10.0.0.85] (modemcable162.249-56-74.mc.videotron.ca [74.56.249.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C40B1E0D5; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0021d003-f807-b28f-4b76-bfcd055b169f@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:55:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] internal_error: remove need to pass __FILE__/__LINE__ Content-Language: fr To: Bruno Larsen , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20221017185019.3233941-1-pedro@palves.net> <6e5b27a9-abd4-60f3-fc3a-d9f8fa9f6a64@simark.ca> <037dc77f-a3f9-34de-adcd-82d775c5d90f@palves.net> <1ba52d6f-8789-e05f-09e3-21ed7fbc2e0e@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <1ba52d6f-8789-e05f-09e3-21ed7fbc2e0e@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:55:24 -0000 On 10/18/22 08:34, Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches wrote: > > On 17/10/2022 21:45, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> Heh, I forgot to look at the code.  It all looks good, except black >> reformats gdbarch.py for me here.  With that fixed you can add my >> Reviewed-By or Approved-By (not sure which one we use when someone who >> can approve a patch reviews the patch of someone else who can approve). > > I would suggest Pedro use the Approved-by tag. Preferably the approver of the patch should be different to the submitter. > > My thought process for someone who can approve using a reviewed-by tag is if you don't know enough for the area of code but you did look at the patch and saw nothing wrong with it. About the same situation when you'd say "this patch looks good to me but I'd defer to XXX, who knows this better" before we started using tags. Thanks, that makes sense. In the case of reviewing Pedro's patches, we would need a tag to say "It looks good, I don't think I understand it all, but given that Pedro wrote the patch, it's most likely correct" :). Simon