From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23966 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2017 17:38:35 -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 23775 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2017 17:38:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HTo:U*thomas, behaviours, H*f:sk:87zi9oj, H*i:sk:87zi9oj X-HELO: mail-qt0-f169.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zX0LfnkPlZCCwbVniJcm+2lhOF96HsjMglwpvVw8tMI=; b=k7HIos0CRsLnWtygR/N9RiuMcLzTrNABZl1GfjffxY+2A+efBBH1WA6hKprPK477Fh 2KiqAeRpdFad6BCZsgNKysONYR1fxpYAXzgaoTlNn6y+Ok1czvv/KRzZ00ZqCv1PddfD fYhIcew5jZV3VpZuNn1RVXOG1izYwqzPTl1I7sZVguF6AzMIerr5KBvPCeIql7S4IHMA DB7sl3Cvx1b34GJjGLZYoQhAGFFOZmjX/fytwZmLBkNwnHrAyTnvxMse1QrlT8TkjxEa acA+Nq1kQzXKDWYPMyEjpbK18QQYQAncgryesaXJNdPfWxyjujYdP25Qj5HbXi8sj0e3 /cJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjsu3za/NQHjsNCLYZYzrT6nfu2lfUiwm9NXF7XLQsuFSMhYWQ9 yZztiEiL0Eqa5P1ojvmUy+Pcr4DKiw0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBUhq+pgn1N217g03+W0iFav7fuwfCkRlaAthks34CxTHceSGAK+M70ECqrm0TGrYVDUtQG6Q== X-Received: by 10.200.49.87 with SMTP id h23mr4584861qtb.13.1506015511281; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc. To: Thomas Schwinge , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00820.txt.bz2 On 09/21/2017 10:50 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > So my question is, if I've gotten a patch reviewed by someone who is not > yet ;-) familiar with that new process, and I nevertheless want to > acknowledge their time invested in review by putting "Reviewed-by" into > the commit log, is it fine to do that if the reviewer just answered with > "OK" (or similar) instead of an explicit "Reviewed-by: NAME " > statement? You should instead ask the author to give their "Reviewed-by:" and point out what the Reviewed-by statement means. > That is, is it fine to assume that our current patch review's standard > "OK" (or similar) answer matches the more formal "Reviewer's statement of > oversight"? Not yet. > Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly > stating "Reviewed-by: NAME " -- or maybe not, because "OK" is just > so much easier to type... All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review. It will be your own personal comments, your reminder, your leading by example, that will change behaviours. -- Cheers, Carlos.