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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> 
>> Hi!
>>
>> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
>> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/
>>
>> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
>> interested have a convenient handle to use,
>> .
> 
> That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers.  
> But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely 
> (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very 
> limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set 
> of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit).  It doesn't cover 
> reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate 
> to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a 
> review approving the entirety of a patch as posted.  If the aim is credit, 
> a substantially different specification is needed.
 
If a person is requesting changes, they should after accepting the changes,
submit a 'Reviewed-by:' tag or 'Acked-by:' tag to indicate they are happy
with the results?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/19/2017 09:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> 
>> Hi!
>>
>> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
>> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/
>>
>> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
>> interested have a convenient handle to use,
>> .
> 
> That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers.  
> But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely 
> (i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very 
> limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set 
> of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit).  It doesn't cover 
> reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate 
> to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a 
> review approving the entirety of a patch as posted.  If the aim is credit, 
> a substantially different specification is needed.
 
This is the purpose of Acked-by: ...

Which we could also include.

linux/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
...

Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
list archives.

...

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

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

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/
> 
> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
> interested have a convenient handle to use,
> .

That wiki page refers to Reviewed-by as being about crediting reviewers.  
But the specification appears to be oriented to something else entirely 
(i.e. convincing a committer - in a Linux-kernel-like context with a very 
limited set of committers to a particular tree, much smaller than the set 
of reviewers - that a patch is worthy of commit).  It doesn't cover 
reviews that request changes, or only relate to part of a patch, or relate 
to a previous version of a patch - only the limited special case of a 
review approving the entirety of a patch as posted.  If the aim is credit, 
a substantially different specification is needed.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

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

[Martin Sebor]

On 10/19/2017 09:57 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

Hi!

Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/

I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
interested have a convenient handle to use,
.


Quoting from the Wiki:

   If approving this patch, please respond with "Reviewed-by:...

Often several people provide helpful feedback on patches that
only one person ultimately approves.  As per the GCC process,
the approver is also one of the maintainers for the area
affected by the patch, and so had to demonstrate the value of
their own contribution to the area by committing many high
quality changes of their own.  Their sustained and valuable
effort has already been recognized (they are prominently
mentioned in the MAINTAINERs file).  So without in any way
diminishing their continued contribution by reviewing and
approving other people's work in addition to making valuable
improvements of their own, I think by focusing on approvals,
the Reviewed-by proposal neglects to acknowledge the hard
work of all the others who contribute to the project.

Martin




Ping.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:47:30 +0200, I wrote:

Ping.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:37:50 +0200, I wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell  wrote:

On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, 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 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 "
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 ", 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 " so that your effort will be recorded.  See
.  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 -   1.87
+++ htdocs/contribute.html  22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:
 Testing Patches
 Documentation Changes
 Web Site Changes
-Submitting Patches
+Preparing Patches
 Announcing Changes (to our Users)
 

@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.
 More about our web pages.


-Submitting Patches
+Preparing Patches

 Every patch must have several pieces of information, before we
 can properly evaluate it:
@@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a 

+
+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.  See
+https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review;.
+  
+
+
+For reference, reproduced from
+  the 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 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
+
+
+https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560;>
+  Reviewed-by: [...] indicates that the patch has been reviewed
+and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
+
+Reviewer's statement of 

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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/19/2017 08:57 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
> chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/
> 
> I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
> interested have a convenient handle to use,
> .

I've started using Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell 
and Signed-off-by: Carlos O'Donell  in all my
glibc reviews.

Since then I've seen 5 such items go into the git commit messages.

Progress? :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

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

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

Still waiting for any kind of reaction -- general process-change inertia,
chicken-and-egg problem, I suppose.  ;-/

I have now put the proposed text onto a wiki page, so that those
interested have a convenient handle to use,
.


Ping.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:47:30 +0200, I wrote:
> Ping.
> 
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:37:50 +0200, I wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell  
> > wrote:
> > > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, 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 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 "
> > > > > > 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 ", 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 " so that your effort will be recorded.  See
> > .  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 -   1.87
> > +++ htdocs/contribute.html  22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:
> >  Testing Patches
> >  Documentation Changes
> >  Web Site Changes
> > -Submitting Patches
> > +Preparing Patches
> >  Announcing Changes (to our Users)
> >  
> >  
> > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.
> >  More about our web pages.
> >  
> >  
> > -Submitting Patches
> > +Preparing Patches
> >  
> >  Every patch must have several pieces of information, before we
> >  can properly evaluate it:
> > @@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a  >  acceptable, as long as the ChangeLog is still posted as plain text.
> >  
> >  
> > +
> > +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.  See
> > +https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review;.
> > +  
> > +
> > +
> > +For reference, reproduced from
> > +  the  > 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 
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> > +
> > +
> > + > cite="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560;>
> > +  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 [...].
> > +
> > 

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

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

Ping.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:37:50 +0200, I wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell  wrote:
> > On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, 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 
> > > > > 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 "
> > > > > 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 ", 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 " so that your effort will be recorded.  See
> .  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.html9 Apr 2015 21:49:31 -   1.87
> +++ htdocs/contribute.html22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:
>  Testing Patches
>  Documentation Changes
>  Web Site Changes
> -Submitting Patches
> +Preparing Patches
>  Announcing Changes (to our Users)
>  
>  
> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.
>  More about our web pages.
>  
>  
> -Submitting Patches
> +Preparing Patches
>  
>  Every patch must have several pieces of information, before we
>  can properly evaluate it:
> @@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a   acceptable, as long as the ChangeLog is still posted as plain text.
>  
>  
> +
> +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.  See
> +https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review;.
> +  
> +
> +
> +For reference, reproduced from
> +  the  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 
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> +
> +
> + cite="https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560;>
> +  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
> +  

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

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:18:39 -0600, Carlos O'Donell  wrote:
> On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:29 -0600, 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 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 "
> > > > 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 ", 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 " so that your effort will be recorded.  See
.  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 -   1.87
+++ htdocs/contribute.html  22 Sep 2017 18:20:04 -
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ contributions must meet:
 Testing Patches
 Documentation Changes
 Web Site Changes
-Submitting Patches
+Preparing Patches
 Announcing Changes (to our Users)
 
 
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ file" mode of the validator.
 More about our web pages.
 
 
-Submitting Patches
+Preparing Patches
 
 Every patch must have several pieces of information, before we
 can properly evaluate it:
@@ -257,6 +257,71 @@ bzip2ed and uuencoded or encoded as a 
 
+
+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.  See
+https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches-review;.
+  
+
+
+For reference, reproduced from
+  the 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 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
+
+
+https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v4.13#n560;>
+  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 

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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 09/21/2017 12:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On September 21, 2017 8:18:39 PM GMT+02:00, Carlos O'Donell 
>  wrote:
>> On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
 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...
>>
>> Isn't it better to be explicit about this; rather than assuming?
>>
 All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review.
>>>
>>> Depends on the complexity of the patch...  
>>
>> ... depends on your ability to create quick paste hot keys :}
> 
> Indeed. Any idea how to do that with K9 / SwiftKey? 

No idea. Right now I use Thunderbird+Clippings, and hotkey my responses
via ctrl+alt+v,r and ctrl+alt+v,s for Reviewed-by/Signed-off-by. Then
with mutt+vim I use recorded macros.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

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

[Richard Biener]

On September 21, 2017 8:18:39 PM GMT+02:00, Carlos O'Donell  
wrote:
>On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> 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...
>
>Isn't it better to be explicit about this; rather than assuming?
>
>>> All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review.
>> 
>> Depends on the complexity of the patch...  
>
>... depends on your ability to create quick paste hot keys :}

Indeed. Any idea how to do that with K9 / SwiftKey? 

Richard. 

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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 09/21/2017 11:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> 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...

Isn't it better to be explicit about this; rather than assuming?

>> All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review.
> 
> Depends on the complexity of the patch...  

... depends on your ability to create quick paste hot keys :}

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

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

[Richard Biener]

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
>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 "
>> 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... 

>> Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly
>> stating "Reviewed-by: NAME " -- or maybe not, because "OK" is
>just
>> 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... 

Richard. 

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

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

[Carlos O'Donell]

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 "
> 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.

> Maybe in the future, reviewers will then switch over to explicitly
> stating "Reviewed-by: NAME " -- or maybe not, because "OK" is just
> so much easier to type...

All of this is nothing compared to the work of doing the review.

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

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.