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 14:31:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org>
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.
Cheers,
Bruno
>
> Thanks.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-10 12:31 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 [this message]
2022-10-10 13:14 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-10 13:26 ` Bruno Larsen
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=4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@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).