public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 15:26:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <222feff2-4453-1f61-9f55-07249c0b8e43@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83fsfvhlbr.fsf@gnu.org>

On 10/10/2022 15:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200
>> Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org
>> From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
>>
>> On 10/10/2022 13:27, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:11:46 +0200
>>>> Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org
>>>> From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not clear what I should do when I approve just part of a patch.
>>>>> It is frequently the case that a patch includes both code and
>>>>> documentation, and I'm approving just the documentation part(s).  Is
>>>>> that item 1 or item 2? or something else?
>>>>>
>>>> It's a bit up to you, if I'm honest. I would default to telling you to
>>>> use Reviewed-by, to avoid confusion, but if you want to say that the
>>>> "documentation parts are Approved-by", I am fine with it.
>>>>
>>>> Just let me know if you decide to go with the second, so I can mention
>>>> in the wiki something like "make sure all of your patch is approved
>>>> before pushing".
>>> I don't mind either way.  This whole thing is a service to others, so
>>> I'll do whatever people prefer.  Let me just point out that my
>>> situation is not too unique: several other maintainers can approve
>>> only parts of patches.
>> Ah, so I'll suggest that you approve the documentation changes, and I'll
>> mention that some approvers may sometimes only approve part of the
>> patch, so one should make sure the whole patch is approved before pushing.
> I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that I should not use _any_ tag
> at all, when the patch includes more than just documentation?

Sorry for making things even more confusing. I meant that you use 
Approved-by tags.

What I was getting at was that the wording I have been using until this 
point was "if you get any Approved-by, it is ready for pushing", and 
that needs to be changed to "be sure that you have received Approved-by 
for all the code, in case a maintainer only approved parts of your 
change", or something of the sorts. Still working on that...

Cheers,
Bruno


  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-10 13:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-21 11:04 Bruno Larsen
2022-09-25 22:38 ` Lancelot SIX
2022-09-26 13:55 ` Simon Marchi
2022-09-26 16:42   ` Joel Brobecker
2022-09-27  8:39     ` Luis Machado
2022-09-27  8:42       ` Luis Machado
2022-09-27  9:38       ` Lancelot SIX
2022-09-27 21:07         ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2022-09-26 21:32   ` John Baldwin
2022-09-27  8:06     ` Bruno Larsen
2022-09-27 12:02       ` Simon Marchi
2022-09-27 12:03         ` Bruno Larsen
2022-09-27 17:11           ` John Baldwin
2022-09-27  7:58   ` Bruno Larsen
2022-09-27 12:03     ` Simon Marchi
2022-09-26 15:59 ` Luis Machado
2022-09-26 16:32   ` Elena Zannoni
2022-09-27  8:30     ` Bruno Larsen
2022-09-27 20:50 ` Thomas Schwinge
2022-10-07  7:49 ` Bruno Larsen
2022-10-07 20:46   ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-08  6:23     ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-08 11:55       ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-08 12:44         ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-09  0:29           ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-10  9:27           ` Bruno Larsen
2022-10-10  9:47             ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-10 10:11               ` Bruno Larsen
2022-10-10 11:27                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-10 12:31                   ` Bruno Larsen
2022-10-10 13:14                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-10 13:26                       ` Bruno Larsen [this message]
2022-10-10 15:25                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-10 13:34             ` Pedro Alves
2022-10-10  9:39     ` Luis Machado

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=222feff2-4453-1f61-9f55-07249c0b8e43@redhat.com \
    --to=blarsen@redhat.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=simark@simark.ca \
    /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).