This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
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: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:08:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <c713fc7a-d2ac-8e7f-0153-7ae24c992fee@redhat.com> <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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191641040.29258@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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,
>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.
>
> 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.
If a person is requesting changes, they should after accepting the changes,
submit a 'Reviewed-by:' tag or 'Acked-by:' tag to indicate they are happy
with the results?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.