Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 15:25 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: > 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. 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.
Cheers