This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat 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 16:45:33 +0000
- 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>
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.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com