This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>,Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>,gdb at sourceware dot org,binutils at sourceware dot org,libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:56:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On September 21, 2017 7:38:29 PM GMT+02:00, Carlos O'Donell <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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>"
>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
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.