From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:27:01 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba948d99-5aa0-bca7-f6dd-ff307a3c514e@redhat.com> (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:11:46 +0200)
> 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.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-10 11:26 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 [this message]
2022-10-10 12:31 ` Bruno Larsen
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=83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=blarsen@redhat.com \
--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).