Hi Liliana, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> writes:
> Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 14:21 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> Hello, >> >> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> 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. -- Thanks, Maxim
