This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.

On September 21, 2017 7:38:29 PM GMT+02:00, 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
>> yet ;-) familiar with that new process, and I nevertheless want to
>> acknowledge their time invested in review by putting "Reviewed-by"
>> the commit log, is it fine to do that if the reviewer just answered
>> "OK" (or similar) instead of an explicit "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>"
>> statement?
>You should instead ask the author to give their "Reviewed-by:" and
>out what the Reviewed-by statement means.
>> That is, is it fine to assume that our current patch review's
>> "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... 

>> Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly
>> stating "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" -- or maybe not, because "OK" is
>> so much easier to type...
>All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review.

Depends on the complexity of the patch... 


>It will be your own personal comments, your reminder, your leading by 
>example, that will change behaviours.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]