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 81D923858402 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:14:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 81D923858402 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=1696950867; bh=+tN4lA9ZYfd+YIlCrXCwZYLDMKoPs8aewJWPsHGOQ2Y=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=bT1Qsz56ZDkHDzrsVUo9Vx0DYlHDHO46muvMFgRehrrsBuIMG4xT7xh9VNxeqqGKW 6A7+O5f69btfCVBGYKEutikrlGYvg4eQsheGk+JunMsX185EYgosIPC9Z7828MoTtf uNrlZEY+M0tGgASG3q3HJewghBPbbLmBbwkWoz7I= 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 C38FB1E091; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7993630f-6098-4d81-af02-ad4f73c20f1c@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:14:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS Content-Language: fr To: Guinevere Larsen , Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eliz@gnu.org, Pedro Alves References: <20231005113533.86112-2-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005113533.86112-3-blarsen@redhat.com> <20231005105530.63d11345@f37-zws-nv> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,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 10/9/23 05:59, Guinevere Larsen wrote: > I understand what you mean, and I see where I may have misunderstood when I said that "Acked-By" worked as partial review in QEMU. > > I'm fine with this being the default if everyone agrees with it. To summarize informally, the tags would be like this: > > * Acked-By: A maintainer of a certain area looked at the patch description and is fine with its direction. this says nothing about the quality of the code. May be restricted to some areas of the code > * Reviewed-By: A contributor has looked at the code and thinks it is good, but is not approving it for any reason. May be restricted to some areas of the code. > * Approved-By: A maintainer has looked at the code and thinks that it is ready for upstreaming. May be restricted to some areas, and may be conditional on receiving a review or ack for some area(s). I like this use of Acked-By, it matches the meaning I thought it had, based on what other projects do. It happens that we say something like "I gave it a quick look and it looks fine to me", indicating that we did not do a thorough review, in which case Acked-By is appropriate. Simon