Hi! On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell <car...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, Carlos O'Donell <car...@redhat.com> > > 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 <EMAIL>" > > > > 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 <EMAIL>", 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 <EMAIL>" so that your effort will be recorded. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review>. There you go. ;-) 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:</p> <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a></li> <li><a href="#docchanges">Documentation Changes</a></li> <li><a href="#webchanges">Web Site Changes</a></li> -<li><a href="#patches">Submitting Patches</a></li> +<li><a href="#patches">Preparing Patches</a></li> <li><a href="#announce">Announcing Changes (to our Users)</a></li> </ul> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.</p> <p>More <a href="about.html#cvs">about our web pages</a>.</p> -<h2><a name="patches">Submitting Patches</a></h2> +<h2><a name="patches">Preparing Patches</a></h2> <p>Every patch must have several pieces of information, <em>before</em> we can properly evaluate it:</p> @@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a <c acceptable, as long as the ChangeLog is still posted as plain text. </p> +<!-- (Eventually) referenced from many places. --> +<h3><a name="patches-review">Acknowledge Patch Review</a></h3> + +<p>Patch review often is a time-consuming effort. It is appreciated to + acknowledge this in the commit log. We are adapting + the <code>Reviewed-by:</code> tag as established by the Linux kernel patch + review process.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<blockquote> + <p>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>. + </p> +</blockquote> + +<p>For reference, reproduced from + the <a href="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560";>Linux + kernel 4.13's <code>Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst</code></a>: +</p> + +<blockquote cite="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560";> + <p><em>Reviewed-by:</em> [...] indicates that the patch has been reviewed + and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:<br> +<br> +<strong>Reviewer's statement of oversight</strong><br> +<br> +By offering my <em>Reviewed-by:</em> tag, I state that:<br> +<br> + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to + evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion [...]. +<br> +<br> + (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. +<br> +<br> + (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. +<br> +<br> + (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. +<br> +<br> +A <em>Reviewed-by:</em> 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 <em>Reviewed-by:</em> 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. <em>Reviewed-by:</em> 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]. +</p></blockquote> + +<h3>Submitting Patches</a></h3> + <p>When you have all these pieces, bundle them up in a mail message and send it to <a href="lists.html">the appropriate mailing list(s)</a>. (Patches will go to one or more lists depending on what you are (I have not yet spent much time on verifying the HTML, or formatting tweaks.) Grüße Thomas
