Hello, Liliana Marie Prikler <[email protected]> writes:
> Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 15:25 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> Hi Liliana, >> >> Liliana Marie Prikler <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 14:21 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > Liliana Marie Prikler <[email protected]> writes: >> > > >> > > > [...] >> > > > If you need me to reduce it to four letters, yes, LGTM. >> > > >> > > Explicit is better than implicit. I've been thinking to document >> > > this in our contributing section; e.g. a reviewed commit must >> > > have the 'LGTM' from the reviewer. If a series is LGTM, it needs >> > > to be implicitly mentioned with 'this series LGTM'. That may >> > > sound silly, but I think it'd simplify reviewer/submitters >> > > interactions. >> > s/implicitly/explicitly/? >> >> Explicit, indeed. >> >> > I don't necessarily agree, but it's not a hard disagree either. >> > I'll try to keep that in mind at least when reviewing your patches >> > to not cause confusion. >> >> OK. One place where this becomes more important is when the send- >> email cc hook includes people partially to a series. A LGTM on a >> single message in this case could be misinterpreted for the whole >> series. It's best to document the expectations and codify these >> often used signals, in my opinion. > I personally prefer to comment to all individual patches or use the > series starter for "this series LGTM", but to recap; 1 and 2 L'd GTM > (with a small caveat for 1) already and we discussed 3 in IRC, so LGTM > for the series. That's a good idea. Thanks for the heads-up! I've now installed this series to core-updates. Closing! -- Thanks, Maxim
