From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA8A5385AC3F for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:14:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AA8A5385AC3F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohscG-000209-1a; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:14:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=I9L1ILxYenFcBdEMD9WnBWXguIxl1UWzDTxQ5HQKYGs=; b=TQ5KWfmOWdnL PIsz/K0nnVRdKYQgTk5SYs2+rN5CAeVu57BkR6h5vMmHLkbaAwvEg6Vi2fR4M6fAeehR2dCgBheqn djhTjZUamsg5AbFxMpao11n9RrbtBLVq8l7KTHjN6nqD/xbRbq2MeX8EJhxmSAJfgv8oyGTTgnsif 1kq1zK57ZoTseWdEJDf4ke0+0M7bLLo3jmE974RCi0pHMzhe+VagS17mDAm3QZR1YvcebP2flEDdT a9+SMa2l4E9rT8T6j7vLppuv6dzIo2gmdOHyrr10a5k0QITZL/TzoeIbpmFTpegt/MHbRwzCnSk+n 1KyGgXlSkPjr5Grs2OcB7A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4723 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohscF-0001iD-AO; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:14:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:14:48 +0300 Message-Id: <83fsfvhlbr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200) Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow. References: <754258e5-b9b7-0785-5580-f8f54e7ad6ad@simark.ca> <83y1tqltpp.fsf@gnu.org> <790305bd-9cdf-9dbc-6b8e-b55f1f70258f@simark.ca> <834jwelc26.fsf@gnu.org> <1c95e1f9-db82-a60e-7d4d-21eaea4435db@redhat.com> <83k058ggcp.fsf@gnu.org> <83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org> <4977bda3-7f8d-1be5-d3e1-143c40c953f2@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:31:54 +0200 > Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org > From: Bruno Larsen > > 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 > >> > >>> 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?