Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 10/5/23 07:35, Guinevere Larsen via Gdb-patches 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
> can be easily double-checked.
> 
> In the GDB BoF in 2023's GNU tools cauldron it was discussed and agreed
> that Acked-by is already in use to represent partial approvals for
> projects like the Linux Kernel and QEMU, so it makes sense to use it
> similarly on this project.
> 
> Finally, for completeness sake, the trailers Co-Authored-By and Bug
> were added, even though they have been in use for some time already
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
> ---
>  gdb/MAINTAINERS | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/MAINTAINERS b/gdb/MAINTAINERS
> index 9989956065e..e8243005531 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 +73,67 @@ 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 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 properly credit
> +the contributors who take the time to improve this project, the following
> +trailers are used 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:
> +
> + - Tested-by:
> +
> +   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, nor the amount of testing that was actually performed.
> +   Usage: "Tested-By: Your Name <your@email>"
> +
> + - Reviewed-by:
> +
> +   Used when a contributor has looked at the code and agrees with
> +   the changes, but either doesn't have the authority or doesn't
> +   feel comfortable approving the patch.
> +   Usage: "Reviewed-By: Your Name <your@email>"
> +
> + - Acked-By:
> +
> +   Used by a responsible or global maintainer when the patch touches multiple
> +   areas of GDB, and the maintainer in question is only approving some of
> +   those areas.  When using this tag, add the area(s) at the end of the text.
> +   This tag is also often described as "partial approval"
> +   Usage: "Acked-By: Your Name <your@email> (area)"
> +
> + - Approved-by:
> +
> +   Used by responsible maintainers or global maintainers when a patch is
> +   ready to be upstreamed.  If a patch requires multiple approvals, only
> +   the last reviewer should use this tag, making it obvious to the
> +   contributor that the patch is ready to be pushed.
> +   Responsible, Global and Official FSF-appointed maintainers may approve
> +   their own patches, but it is recommended that they seek external approval
> +   before doing so.
> +   Usage: "Approved-By: Your Name <your@email>"
> +
> + - Co-Authored-By:
> +
> +   Used when the commit includes meaningful conrtibutions from multiple people.
> +   Usage: "Co-Authored-By: Contributor's Name <their@email>"
> +
> + - Bug:
> +
> +   This trailer is added with a link to the GDB bug tracker bug for
> +   added context on relevant commits.
> +   Usage: "Bug: <link>"

An extremely nitty nit: maybe I'm overthinking this, but in the examples
that use emails, the < > characters are meant to appear in the real
trailer, around the email address.  For the bug link, you used them as a
placeholder, and they are not meant to appear on the actual Bug: line.
Maybe something like this?

  Usage: "Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=..."

I don't know, either way your change looks good to me.  However, I was
not really part of those discussions, so I'd rather let someone else
approve the change, if possible.

Simon