This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- To: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, <gdb at sourceware dot org>, <binutils at sourceware dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:57:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 follow up: "Reviewed-by" etc.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87zi9oj8rl.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <c713fc7a-d2ac-8e7f-0153-7ae24c992fee@redhat.com> <347AE883-971C-447C-AB07-43F7F70F25D3@gmail.com> <4056e466-3055-455b-9922-55497d21fd80@redhat.com> <87tvzuk29t.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <87376zja8d.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net>
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,
<https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Reviewed-by>.
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 <carlos@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 <carlos@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