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 6D92C3858425 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6D92C3858425 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]:36766) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ohpNh-0006bc-SZ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:29 -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=6B+UE5Pr/0USuNT4QNd0K5my2z3B9VcuwX3paTC5vQo=; b=UoMnyqvZv1Ua nJJbVgJt21lzfVw/c4jSSlUa3GY4MDJu7h635D84y+OC4AhCsJ3PWJbBEDmbpyFEIUwLf+JvvXzRn R3m7xmXPe7Xj+1eVfbV7hmRCCKOFmWk1uFFbKWh1+G4l1yWh1H57uGzC5m++l9vfKqpG71B9ClTH7 u634/zi/ddusaga0ySEHzSknsr+LlhCdtQ8JQoTTlIowcPkBsvu90WzmtXcajIlhizYEzRaJOZAKl uaWYfuDChINPno5ARGnIQ7vaeP1yzbZXQ7myop88bHG23GIHgIzFLJWnArSaGD79GO7PWob86dKM4 rljpWT8nhKRoEsdNTP7WwA==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3607 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 1ohpNh-0006ut-B2; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 05:47:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 12:47:34 +0300 Message-Id: <83k058ggcp.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1c95e1f9-db82-a60e-7d4d-21eaea4435db@redhat.com> (message from Bruno Larsen on Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:27:03 +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> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,OBFU_UNSUB_UL,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 11:27:03 +0200 > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > From: Bruno Larsen > > As Simon mentioned, there weren't big changes, but here's a quick cookbook: Thanks! > 1. If you have the authority to approve a patch and believe the patch > you are reviewing is ready to be merged, add the following line to your > e-mail (usually at the end): Approved-by: Your Name > > 2. If you don't have the authority to approve patches, or aren't > convinced that you know enough about the area of code to fully approve a > patch for merging, and haven't found any technical issues (i.e. > non-nitpicks) with the patch, add the following line to your e-mail: > Reviewed-by: Your Name > > 3. If you aren't sure of the quality of the technical changes, but you > have tested and verified that the patch does not add any regressions, > add the following line to your e-mail: Tested-by: Your Name > 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?