Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2018-11-01 21:51:32
Size: 3165
Editor: tschwinge
Comment: Reviewer point of view
Revision 3 as of 2018-11-01 21:59:08
Size: 3166
Editor: tschwinge
Comment: Minor rewording
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 22: Line 22:
 If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be recorded. See <`https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by`>.  If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be recorded in the commit log, see <`https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by`>.
Line 27: Line 27:
 Thanks, approved. Please include "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" in the commit log, so that the review effort will be recorded. See <`https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by`>.  Thanks, approved. To record the review effort, please include "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" in the commit log, see <`https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by`>.

This is kind of an experiment, based on cauldron2017 discussions. The content of this page is meant to eventually be incorporated into https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches, see the proposal at http://mid.mail-archive.com/87tvzuk29t.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net.

Contributing to GCC

Preparing Patches

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 in the commit log, see <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.

Or alternatively, you, as the reviewer, should encourage the submitter/person who commits the patch to acknowledge this effort. For example, include the following in your review approval:

  • Thanks, approved. To record the review effort, please include "Reviewed-by: NAME <EMAIL>" in the commit log, see <https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.

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].

None: Reviewed-by (last edited 2018-11-01 21:59:08 by tschwinge)