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 B0A2D38313B9 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:31:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B0A2D38313B9 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1696516276; bh=e1FSup5zSaNI8cJjHV+C7/GKZGFaI2CKsXrU3zkbNpc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=pAO5yD5tj8na1g1qddzBXNLzQFhlbP/lnB3LMCvlGyX6EFR8172JUNLex3BBz5Gll gWLXc2eAUPBsFYVdf9BzBcUozdet4+xpiE5zurABGLa/w/cQwGtSDWHZZj51ixRDAy N7J+9z8+az6Br0evtKpxoubWMwVdM+f+HT3QJ5IU= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 339231E028; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6d46a55e-7ce9-4794-a26a-82b2446fec43@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:31:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS To: Guinevere Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: eliz@gnu.org, Kevin Buettner References: <20231005113533.86112-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005113533.86112-3-blarsen@redhat.com> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <20231005113533.86112-3-blarsen@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,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 List-Id: 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 > --- > 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 " > + > + - 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 " > + > + - 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 (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 " > + > + - Co-Authored-By: > + > + Used when the commit includes meaningful conrtibutions from multiple people. > + Usage: "Co-Authored-By: Contributor's Name " > + > + - Bug: > + > + This trailer is added with a link to the GDB bug tracker bug for > + added context on relevant commits. > + Usage: "Bug: " 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