This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600
- Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com>
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 <EMAIL>"
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
> Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly
> stating "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" -- 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.