Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

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>.


Ping.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:47:30 +0200, I wrote:
> Ping.
> 
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:37:50 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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>"
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > I think given an OK from an official reviewer entitles you to commit
> > > > it indeed IS matching the formal statement. It better does...
> > 
> > I certainly understand your rationale, and do agree to that -- yet, I can
> > see how somebody might get offended if turning a casual "OK" into a
> > formal "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>", so...
> > 
> > > Isn't it better to be explicit about this; rather than assuming?
> > 
> > ..., yeah, that makes sense.
> > 
> > Anyway: aside from starting to use them, we should also document such new
> > processes, so we might do it as follows, where I had the idea that the
> > *submitter* 'should encourage the reviewer to "earn" this
> > acknowledgement'.
> > 
> > Gerald, OK to commit?  If approving this patch, please respond with
> > "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be recorded.  See
> > <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review>.  There you go.  ;-)
> > 
> > Index: htdocs/contribute.html
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/contribute.html,v
> > retrieving revision 1.87
> > diff -u -p -r1.87 contribute.html
> > --- htdocs/contribute.html	9 Apr 2015 21:49:31 -0000	1.87
> > +++ htdocs/contribute.html	22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -0000
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:</p>
> >  <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a></li>
> >  <li><a href="#docchanges">Documentation Changes</a></li>
> >  <li><a href="#webchanges">Web Site Changes</a></li>
> > -<li><a href="#patches">Submitting Patches</a></li>
> > +<li><a href="#patches">Preparing Patches</a></li>
> >  <li><a href="#announce">Announcing Changes (to our Users)</a></li>
> >  </ul>
> >  
> > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.</p>
> >  <p>More <a href="about.html#cvs">about our web pages</a>.</p>
> >  
> >  
> > -<h2><a name="patches">Submitting Patches</a></h2>
> > +<h2><a name="patches">Preparing Patches</a></h2>
> >  
> >  <p>Every patch must have several pieces of information, <em>before</em> we
> >  can properly evaluate it:</p>
> > @@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a <c
> >  acceptable, as long as the ChangeLog is still posted as plain text.
> >  </p>
> >  
> > +<!-- (Eventually) referenced from many places.  -->
> > +<h3><a name="patches-review">Acknowledge Patch Review</a></h3>
> > +
> > +<p>Patch review often is a time-consuming effort.  It is appreciated to
> > +  acknowledge this in the commit log.  We are adapting
> > +  the <code>Reviewed-by:</code> tag as established by the Linux kernel patch
> > +  review process.</p>
> > +
> > +<p>As this is not yet an established process in GCC, you, as the submitter,
> > +  should encourage the reviewer to "earn" this acknowledgement.  For example,
> > +  include the following in your patch submission:</p>
> > +
> > +<blockquote>
> > +  <p>If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME
> > +    &lt;EMAIL&gt;" so that your effort will be recorded.  See
> > +    &lt;https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review&gt;.
> > +  </p>
> > +</blockquote>
> > +
> > +<p>For reference, reproduced from
> > +  the <a href="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560";>Linux
> > +  kernel 4.13's <code>Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst</code></a>:
> > +</p>
> > +
> > +<blockquote cite="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560";>
> > +  <p><em>Reviewed-by:</em> [...] indicates that the patch has been reviewed
> > +    and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:<br>
> > +<br>
> > +<strong>Reviewer's statement of oversight</strong><br>
> > +<br>
> > +By offering my <em>Reviewed-by:</em> tag, I state that:<br>
> > +<br>
> > +	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
> > +	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion [...].
> > +<br>
> > +<br>
> > +	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
> > +	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
> > +	     with the submitter's response to my comments.
> > +<br>
> > +<br>
> > +	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
> > +	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
> > +	     worthwhile modification [...], and (2) free of known
> > +	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.
> > +<br>
> > +<br>
> > +	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
> > +	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
> > +	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
> > +	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.
> > +<br>
> > +<br>
> > +A <em>Reviewed-by:</em> tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
> > +appropriate modification [...] without any remaining serious
> > +technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
> > +offer a <em>Reviewed-by:</em> tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
> > +reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
> > +done on the patch.  <em>Reviewed-by:</em> tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
> > +understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
> > +increase the likelihood of your patch getting [...] [approved].
> > +</p></blockquote>
> > +
> > +<h3>Submitting Patches</a></h3>
> > +
> >  <p>When you have all these pieces, bundle them up in a mail message and
> >  send it to <a href="lists.html">the appropriate mailing list(s)</a>.
> >  (Patches will go to one or more lists depending on what you are
> > 
> > (I have not yet spent much time on verifying the HTML, or formatting
> > tweaks.)


Grüße
 Thomas