Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
Carlos O'Donell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.gcc.devel,gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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.