Re: Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow.

Bruno Larsen via Gdb <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gdb.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 26/09/2022 23:32, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 9/26/22 6:55 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022-09-21 07:04, Bruno Larsen via Gdb wrote:
>>> TL;DR: I want to introduce the usage of 3 new review tags to the GDB 
>>> patch review workflow. They are: Reviewed-by, Approved-by and 
>>> Tested-by.
>>
>> Hi Bruno,
>>
>> I completely agree with the proposal.  I really like the fact that it
>> makes communication less ambiguous.  Following some process (or changing
>> the process) can feel a bit heavy for long-timers, but I think it makes
>> things much clearer for newcomers.
>>
>> Assuming we will go through with this proposal, it will need to be
>> documented on the wiki so we can easily refer people to the procedure.
>> Probably the ContributionChecklist page?
>>
>>    https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist
>>
>> Will you be able to take care of this when needed (do you have write
>> access to the wiki)?
>>
>> In the mean time, message to others: please let us know if you agree
>> with this, it's difficult to know we have the support of the community
>> if everybody silently agrees!
>
> I'm fine with the idea.  I'm less worried about "credit" for reviewing
> personally, and the suggested format seems a tad verbose perhaps vs
> just formalizing "Approved", but it's probably good to have it be a bit
> different from straight prose to be more explicit.

Hi John,

Thanks for your input! While it is a bit verbose, I didn't find it to be 
a problem when reading through commits that used it (on other projects) 
because of the tag-like formatting. It's quick and easy to identify and 
skip through it when looking through the commit history, and easy to 
automate the emitting from the reviewer side.

>
> It also wasn't clear to me if the intention was for the commits to
> be amended with the annotations?  (I don't think it was explicitly
> stated in the original mail, and I'm not sure if it was an implicit
> assumption?) 
No, I didn't intend on amending previous commits. The main problem this 
change intends to solve is fixing ambiguity, and the pushed patches 
don't have that issue anymore. Thanking a reviewer is just one more 
positive side (IMHO) going forward.

Cheers,
Bruno
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.