From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
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 v3 0/1] update MAINTAINERS file with git trailers
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:50:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230713145047.358e2c4a@f37-zws-nv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230713105651.2281574-2-blarsen@redhat.com>
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 12:56:51 +0200
Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> wrote:
> Right now there is one big unanswered question: Should we have a
> specific tag to explicitly signal when a patch has been partially
> approved? Eli asked for it to avoid people mechanically reading tags
> from thinking that a patch has been fully approved when it was only
> partial.
I don't think we need a tag for this. Since we review and/or approve
patches via email, I think some additional text stating which portions
were reviewed or approved is sufficient.
Suppose I'm an area maintainer or a global maintainer who has confident
knowledge of a particular area. I might then do something like this:
For the mn10300 architecture portions:
Approved-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Only the Approved-by tag would be added to the git trailer, but it's
clear to anyone involved in the approval process that I haven't
approved the patch in its entirety, only certain parts. If I were to
review the rest of the patch, but not approve it, I see nothing wrong
with also saying:
For everything else:
Reviewed-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
I also see nothing wrong with qualifying the 'Reviewed-by' or
'Acked-by' tags. Yes, we might end up with a patchwork of reviews,
but we might also get more people involved with the review process,
which I think would be a good thing.
If we really want to include the portions reviewed in the trailer, then
I suggest extending the format of the trailer, perhaps like this:
Approved-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> (mn10300 only)
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-13 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-13 10:56 Bruno Larsen
2023-07-13 10:56 ` [PATCH v4 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS Bruno Larsen
2023-07-13 21:24 ` Kevin Buettner
2023-07-13 21:50 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2023-07-14 5:50 ` [PATCH v3 0/1] update MAINTAINERS file with git trailers Eli Zaretskii
2023-07-14 10:11 ` Bruno Larsen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-06-28 12:42 Bruno Larsen
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=20230713145047.358e2c4a@f37-zws-nv \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=blarsen@redhat.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
--cc=ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.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).