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

2017-09-21 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! Sending this to the "main" GNU tools mailing lists. Of course, that's not meant to exclude other tools. Amongst other things ;-) at the GNU Tools Cauldron 2017 we discussed whether having a "Reviewed-by" tag in the commit log might provide an incentive for more people to invest time in patc

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

2017-09-21 Thread 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

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

2017-09-21 Thread 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

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

2017-09-21 Thread 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 t

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

2017-09-21 Thread 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 expl

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

2017-09-21 Thread 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 sta

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

2017-09-22 Thread 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 so

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

2017-10-04 Thread 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: >

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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 1

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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, >

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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,

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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, >

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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 >> i

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

2017-10-19 Thread 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 >> i