[PATCH v3 1/1] [gdb]: add git trailer information on gdb/MAINTAINERS

[Andrew Burgess]

Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> writes:

> The project has been using Tested-By (tb), Reviewed-By (rb) and
> Approved-By (ab) for some time, but there has been no information to be
> found in the actual repository. This commit changes that by adding
> information about all git trailers to the MAINTAINERS file, so that it
> can be easily double-checked.
>
> The upstream discussion also brought up the use of Acked-by, which is
> better defined in this commit.  Finally, for completeness sake, the
> trailers Co-Authored-By and Bug were added, even though they have been
> in use for some time already
> ---
>  gdb/MAINTAINERS | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/MAINTAINERS b/gdb/MAINTAINERS
> index 7fa608fd82c..cd9d299ea42 100644
> --- a/gdb/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/gdb/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -43,14 +43,9 @@ patch without review from another maintainer.  This especially includes
>  patches which change internal interfaces (e.g. global functions, data
>  structures) or external interfaces (e.g. user, remote, MI, et cetera).
>  
> -The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of feedback
> -from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes or
> -clarification with the intention of approving a revised version.  Review is
> -a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among the GDB
> -Maintainers.  Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position but not the
> -relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on the
> -mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes or
> -ask questions about a patch!
> +The word "contributor" is used in this document to refer to any GDB
> +developer listed above as well as folks who may have suggested some
> +patches but aren't part of one of those categories for any reason.
>  
>  There's also a couple of other people who play special roles in the GDB
>  community, separately from the patch process:
> @@ -78,6 +73,61 @@ consensus among the global maintainers and any other involved parties.
>  In cases where consensus can not be reached, the global maintainers may
>  ask the official FSF-appointed GDB maintainers for a final decision.
>  
> +The term "review" is used in this file to describe several kinds of
> +feedback from a maintainer: approval, rejection, and requests for changes
> +or clarification with the intention of approving a revised version.
> +Approval is a privilege and/or responsibility of various positions among
> +the GDB Maintainers.  Of course, anyone - whether they hold a position, but
> +not the relevant one for a particular patch, or are just following along on
> +the mailing lists for fun, or anything in between - may suggest changes, ask
> +questions about a patch or say if they believe a patch is fit for upstreaming!
> +
> +To ensure that patches are only pushed when approved, and to properly credit
> +the contributors who take the time to improve this project, the following
> +trailers are used to identify who contributed and how.  All patches pushed
> +upstream should have at least one Approved-By patches (with the exception of
> +obvious patches, see below).  The trailers (or tags) currently in use are:
> +
> + - Acked-By:
> +
> +   Used when a contributor has taken a quick glance at a patch and agrees
> +   with the direction outlined in the commit message, but hasn't evaluated
> +   the code for correctness or regressions.
> +
> + - Tested-by:
> +
> +   Used when a contributor has tested the patch and finds that it
> +   fixes the claimed problem.  It may also be used to indicate that
> +   the contributor has performed regression testing.  By itself, this
> +   tag says nothing about the quality of the fix implemented by the
> +   patch.

Given the number of different ways that tests can be run, and that you
specifically say "It _may_ also be used to indicate ...", I wonder if
it's worth extending the last sentence to specifically say:

  By itself, this tag says nothing about the quality of the fix
  implemented by the patch, nor the amount of testing that was actually
  performed.

Some people might give a (tb) tag just for running the tests added by
the commit in question, while others might run the full testsuite on a
unix board, while others might do a full regression test using multiple
different boards.  The tag itself tells us very little really.

Thanks,
Andrew

> +
> + - Reviewed-by:
> +
> +   Used when a contributor has looked at code and agrees with the
> +   changes, but either doesn't have the authority or doesn't feel
> +   comfortable approving the patch.
> +
> + - Approved-by:
> +
> +   Used by responsible maintainers or global maintainers when a patch is
> +   ready to be upstreamed.  Some patches may touch multiple areas and
> +   require multiple approvals before landing (such as a maintainer only
> +   approving documentation), it is up to the maintainer giving the approval
> +   tag to make it clear when that a tag is not sufficient. Responsible,
> +   Global and Official FSF-appointed maintainers may approve their own
> +   patches, but it is recommended that they seek external approval before
> +   doing so.
> +
> + - Co-Authored-By:
> +
> +   Used when the commit includes meaningful conrtibutions from multiple people.
> +
> + - Bug:
> +
> +   This trailer is added with a link to the GDB bug tracker for added context
> +   on relevant commits.
> +
>  
>  			The Obvious Fix Rule
>  			--------------------
> -- 
> 2.41.0