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 A04033858D37 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:26:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A04033858D37 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]:33984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohqvu-0008Ev-V6; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:26:54 -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=KbSQ0/H3nVAPocW58ayNv+LBmIJnTCFDXjg4p7zo7jc=; b=Ik3X407tyU/+ YSnz4NFJwhPR8c0gnFq7hbfYDqSzGNQ7ftsiHH/blfBEjU8l/KV3mEWW35FRKWX1tQFSiwnluX1en qljJfTnlHC91fj+pynzDVYtCfXuBtFKP3sImd4gf0/Qgo9hj3KMLh4YY1qAS4mMz6HF2/weSZbt40 8Bg9cbYLb4j3+YWy0RachFn815NTv+MjUr489W9ItECbdR0dPv3Clrc9iJQAbYsKxcmKCq7NNycH8 KjnGr0q96Xc0ODIwbMcUZvIN2mbWXJiJzaeWHtvHXiHjmL23YnKu6M5oXOTjg9mC76nID2vl4BjIM +okKzJA3K+640XpeiybFvg==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1741 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 1ohqvu-0001R7-C9; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:26:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:27:01 +0300 Message-Id: <83h70bhqbe.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:11:46 +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> 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 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. Thanks.