Re: [PATCH 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS

On 5/16/23 13:48, Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 18:41:55 +0200
>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
>> From: Bruno Larsen <[email protected]>
>>
>> On 16/05/2023 18:04, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> +   Used when a contributor has looked at code and agrees with the changes,
>>>> +   but either does not have the authority or doesn't feel comfortable
>>>> +   approving the patch (usually due to unfamiliarity with a certain
>>>> +   part of the code).
>>> Reviewed-by is used by responsible maintainers as well.
>> I think I need clearer wording then.
> 
> I think "both contributors and maintainers" is good enough.
> 
>>> I think the above list is incomplete, because there appears to be no
>>> "git trailer" (why do we have to call it "git" trailer, btw?  will
>>> that change if we ever switch to a different VCS?) for the situation
>>> where the responsible maintainer does approve some part of the patch,
>>> but not all of it (e.g., because the other parts are not in the
>>> expertise domain of that maintainer).  I thought Reviewed-by is such a
>>> trailer, but based on the above I'm beginning to think I was confused.
>>>
>> I wrote the proposal based on how I think the use of trailers works on 
>> the QEMU project (I wasn't in it long enough to be sure that I am 
>> correct, though). My thinking was that you'd send something like 
>> "documentation changes are approved, but someone needs to look at the 
>> code, Approved-By ..." or something similar. That said, I just 
>> remembered that they also use Ack-By in those situations and the 
>> maintainer of the subsystem most affected by a change is the only one to 
>> approve the patch, and other relevant maintainers use Ack-By (they have 
>> a very different development workflow, with each subsystem maintainer 
>> having their own tree and them only being merged into the master tree 
>> periodically). I'm pretty open to suggestions, if you think using 
>> Acked-By or some other trailer is better. That is the reason I'm doing 
>> this :-)
> 
> I don't think I'm in a position to put forward suggestions, since I'm
> not sure I have a good understanding of the process.  I only use
> Approved-By when I can approve the entire patch, not just parts of it.
> But maybe I'm wrong in that.

If this happens, I think it's fine to say "the documentation parts are
approved" and following with your Approved-By.  If you want to be
extra-clear, add "but the rest needs to be approved by someone else".
The patch will end up with multiple Approved-Bys.

Speaking of Acked-By, I felt the need to use it recently, where I just
read the commit message, agreed with it, but didn't have time to review
the code itself.  I wanted to show that I agreed with the intent of the
patch.  I think that's what Acked-By is for.  I think we could add it to
that list.

Simon