Proposal: Add review tags to patch review workflow.

Bruno Larsen blarsen@redhat.com
Mon Oct 10 10:11:46 GMT 2022


On 10/10/2022 11:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:27:03 +0200
>> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
>> From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
>>
>> As Simon mentioned, there weren't big changes, but here's a quick cookbook:
> Thanks!
>
>> 1. If you have the authority to approve a patch and believe the patch
>> you are reviewing is ready to be merged, add the following line to your
>> e-mail (usually at the end): Approved-by: Your Name <your_email@example.com>
>>
>> 2. If you don't have the authority to approve patches, or aren't
>> convinced that you know enough about the area of code to fully approve a
>> patch for merging, and haven't found any technical issues (i.e.
>> non-nitpicks) with the patch, add the following line to your e-mail:
>> Reviewed-by: Your Name <your_email@example.com>
>>
>> 3. If you aren't sure of the quality of the technical changes, but you
>> have tested and verified that the patch does not add any regressions,
>> add the following line to your e-mail: Tested-by: Your Name
>> <your_name@example.com>
> I'm not clear what I should do when I approve just part of a patch.
> It is frequently the case that a patch includes both code and
> documentation, and I'm approving just the documentation part(s).  Is
> that item 1 or item 2? or something else?
>
It's a bit up to you, if I'm honest. I would default to telling you to 
use Reviewed-by, to avoid confusion, but if you want to say that the 
"documentation parts are Approved-by", I am fine with it.

Just let me know if you decide to go with the second, so I can mention 
in the wiki something like "make sure all of your patch is approved 
before pushing".

Cheers,
Bruno



More information about the Gdb mailing list