From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 5638D3858D20 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:59:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5638D3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1686614394; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/a6BqImc3cqzfUYZcDAlwez2s8wrQMXlRNEVEyxQo/g=; b=RnjSSlCLNC8BaI1+RVxRseeGkkCC0F8cppVrC9e6pY1q89LdtqK9DEp0HyFi7MerS7YA/I lTfyrdNlCGMvI6CV04ukt94R5wMU9Hc6TpaTnoCop3jOk7hyUwBcTAwdmzDXgSS4jLd1j4 FOBVkdoMvFuQ0jqt9QHKQBhnMakm2zA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-210-lRfFG82XNPafOuVjMTHyJg-1; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:59:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: lRfFG82XNPafOuVjMTHyJg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D023A2932480; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f38-zws-nv (unknown [10.22.32.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FDAF492CA6; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:59:44 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: Bruno Larsen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@palves.net, aburgess@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, tom@tromey.com, tdevries@suse.de, ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS Message-ID: <20230612165944.5bf15698@f38-zws-nv> In-Reply-To: <20230612100138.912813-2-blarsen@redhat.com> References: <20230612100138.912813-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <20230612100138.912813-2-blarsen@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi, Thanks for taking this on. See my thoughts inline below... On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:01:40 +0200 Bruno Larsen wrote: > The project has been using Tested-By (tb), Reviewed-By (rb) and > Approved-By (ab) for some time, but there has been no information to be > found in the actual repository. This commit changes that by adding > information about all git trailers to the MAINTAINERS file, so that it If you wish to document *all* git trailers, then 'Bug:' and 'Co-Authored-By:' should be documented too. > can be easily double-checked. > > The upstream discussion also brought up the use of Acked-by, which is > better defined in this commit. > --- > gdb/MAINTAINERS | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gdb/MAINTAINERS b/gdb/MAINTAINERS > index 175595d5f17..22f7ecbd471 100644 > --- a/gdb/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/gdb/MAINTAINERS > @@ -43,14 +43,9 @@ patch without review from another maintainer. This especially includes > patches which change internal interfaces (e.g. global functions, data > structures) or external interfaces (e.g. user, remote, MI, et cetera). > > -The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback > -from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or > -clarification with the intention of approving a revised version. Review is > -a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB > -Maintainers. Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the > -relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the > -mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes or > -ask questions about a patch! > +The word "contributor" is used in this document to refer to any GDB > +developer listed above as well as folks who may have suggested some patches > +but aren't part of one of those categories for any reason. > > There's also a couple of other people who play special roles in the GDB > community, separately from the patch process: > @@ -78,6 +73,51 @@ consensus among the global maintainers and any other involved parties. > In cases where consensus can not be reached, the global maintainers may > ask the official FSF-appointed GDB maintainers for a final decision. > > +The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback > +from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or > +clarification with the intention of approving a revised version. Approval is In the line above, you've replaced the word "Review" with "Approval". I think I like "Review" better. (But there may be an even better word or phrase to use here.) > +a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB > +Maintainers. Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the > +relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the > +mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes, > +ask questions about a patch or say if they believe a patch is fit for > +upstreaming! > + > +To ensure that patches are only pushed when approved, and to thank the > +contributors who take the time to review incoming patches, the GDB project > +uses trailers to identify who contributed and how. All patches pushed > +upstream should have at least one Approved-By patches (with the exception of > +obvious patches, see below). The trailers (or tags) currently in use are: > + > + - Acked-By: > + > + Used when a contributor has taken a quick glance at a patch and agrees > + with the direction outlined in the commit message, but hasn't evaluated > + the code for correctness or regressions. > + > + - Tested-by: > + > + Used when a contributor does not want to comment on the quality > + of the code in the patch, but has tested and sees no regressions on their > + hardware. For "Tested-by", I suggest this instead: Used when a contributor has tested the patch and finds that it fixes the claimed problem. It may also be used to indicate that the contributor has performed regression testing. By itself, this tag says nothing about the quality of the fix implemented by the patch. > + > + - Reviewed-by: > + > + Used when a contributors have looked at code and agrees with the changes, s/contributors have/contributor has/ s/code/the code/ > + but either don't have the authority or don't feel comfortable approving s/don't/doesn't/ ?? > + the patch (usually due to unfamiliarity with the relevant part of the code). I think I'd remove the parenthetical remark. There could be a variety of reasons for feeling uncomfortable with outright approving the change. One of the reasons that I sometimes don't approve a patch with which I agree is that I want to give other maintainers a chance to look at it first, especially when I know that they were involved with review of earlier iterations of the patch. I sometimes ask that a contributor wait a few days or a week for others to comment prior to pushing it. I'm not sure how that would work when using these tags. Could I give conditional 'Approved-by:' tag? Maybe something like this?: Approved-by: (name & email here) (But please wait a week for others to comment first. If there are any objections or concerns, please address those first.) > + > + - Approved-by: > + > + Used by responsible maintainers or global maintainers when > + a patch is ready to be upstreamed. Some patches may touch multiple areas > + and require multiple approvals before landing (such as a maintainer only > + approving documentation), it is up to the maintainer giving the approval tag > + to make it clear when that a tag is not sufficient. > + Responsible, Global and Official FSF-appointed maintainers may approve their > + own patches, but it is recommended that they seek external approval before > + doing so. > + In the above paragraph (and perhaps in a few other placess too), it seems that the formatting needs some adjustment. (Some lines are quite short while others seem a bit long.) > > The Obvious Fix Rule > -------------------- > -- > 2.40.1 >