From patchwork Fri Sep 22 18:37:50 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Thomas Schwinge X-Patchwork-Id: 23085 Received: (qmail 101858 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2017 18:38:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list libc-alpha@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 101812 invoked by uid 89); 22 Sep 2017 18:38:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Site, casual, acknowledgement, earn X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 3 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com From: Thomas Schwinge To: Carlos O'Donell , Richard Biener , , Gerald Pfeifer CC: , , Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc. In-Reply-To: <4056e466-3055-455b-9922-55497d21fd80@redhat.com> References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <347AE883-971C-447C-AB07-43F7F70F25D3@gmail.com> <4056e466-3055-455b-9922-55497d21fd80@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-125-g4686d11 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.2.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:37:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvzuk29t.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi! On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > On 09/21/2017 10:50 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > So my question is, if I've gotten a patch reviewed by someone who is not > > > > yet ;-) familiar with that new process, and I nevertheless want to > > > > acknowledge their time invested in review by putting "Reviewed-by" into > > > > the commit log, is it fine to do that if the reviewer just answered with > > > > "OK" (or similar) instead of an explicit "Reviewed-by: NAME " > > > > statement? > > > You should instead ask the author to give their "Reviewed-by:" and point > > > out what the Reviewed-by statement means. > > > > > > > That is, is it fine to assume that our current patch review's standard > > > > "OK" (or similar) answer matches the more formal "Reviewer's statement of > > > > oversight"? > > > > > > Not yet. > > > > I think given an OK from an official reviewer entitles you to commit > > it indeed IS matching the formal statement. It better does... I certainly understand your rationale, and do agree to that -- yet, I can see how somebody might get offended if turning a casual "OK" into a formal "Reviewed-by: NAME ", so... > Isn't it better to be explicit about this; rather than assuming? ..., yeah, that makes sense. Anyway: aside from starting to use them, we should also document such new processes, so we might do it as follows, where I had the idea that the *submitter* 'should encourage the reviewer to "earn" this acknowledgement'. Gerald, OK to commit? If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME " so that your effort will be recorded. See . There you go. ;-) (I have not yet spent much time on verifying the HTML, or formatting tweaks.) Grüße Thomas Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. Index: htdocs/contribute.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/contribute.html,v retrieving revision 1.87 diff -u -p -r1.87 contribute.html --- htdocs/contribute.html 9 Apr 2015 21:49:31 -0000 1.87 +++ htdocs/contribute.html 22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -0000 @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:

  • Testing Patches
  • Documentation Changes
  • Web Site Changes
    • -
  • Submitting Patches
    • +
  • Preparing Patches
  • Announcing Changes (to our Users)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.

    More about our web pages.

    -

    Submitting Patches

    +

    Preparing Patches

    Every patch must have several pieces of information, before we can properly evaluate it:

    @@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a + +

    Acknowledge Patch Review

    + +

    Patch review often is a time-consuming effort. It is appreciated to + acknowledge this in the commit log. We are adapting + the Reviewed-by: tag as established by the Linux kernel patch + review process.

    + +

    As this is not yet an established process in GCC, you, as the submitter, + should encourage the reviewer to "earn" this acknowledgement. For example, + include the following in your patch submission:

    + +
    +

    If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME + <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be recorded. See + <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review>. +

    +
    + +

    For reference, reproduced from + the Linux + kernel 4.13's Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: +

    + +
    +

    Reviewed-by: [...] indicates that the patch has been reviewed + and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
    +
    +Reviewer's statement of oversight
    +
    +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
    +
    + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to + evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion [...]. +
    +
    + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch + have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied + with the submitter's response to my comments. +
    +
    + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this + submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a + worthwhile modification [...], and (2) free of known + issues which would argue against its inclusion. +
    +
    + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I + do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any + warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated + purpose or function properly in any given situation. +
    +
    +A Reviewed-by: tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an +appropriate modification [...] without any remaining serious +technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can +offer a Reviewed-by: tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to +reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been +done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to +understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally +increase the likelihood of your patch getting [...] [approved]. +

    + +

    Submitting Patches

    +

    When you have all these pieces, bundle them up in a mail message and send it to the appropriate mailing list(s). (Patches will go to one or more lists depending on what you are