From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 55050 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2017 16:45:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 55014 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2017 16:45:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=crediting, credit X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 3 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:45:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Thomas Schwinge CC: , Gerald Pfeifer , Carlos O'Donell , Richard Biener , , , Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc. In-Reply-To: <87shefi100.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> Message-ID: References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <347AE883-971C-447C-AB07-43F7F70F25D3@gmail.com> <4056e466-3055-455b-9922-55497d21fd80@redhat.com> <87tvzuk29t.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87376zja8d.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87shefi100.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00915.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia, > chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose. ;-/ > > I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those > interested have a convenient handle to use, > . That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers. But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit). It doesn't cover reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a review approving the entirety of a patch as posted. If the aim is credit, a substantially different specification is needed. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com