Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches

["Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)" <neurogeek@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1801 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Alexander Berntsen
<alexander@plaimi.net>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote:
> > So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An
> > email should be sent any time one of those fields is changed?
> That's not necessary, in my opinion. We already send emails, "looks OK
> to me" and similar. And most patches don't really need more than one
> review and an ACK by the lead.
>
> > Do you have a more detailed plan on how would this work?
> Not really. We're small enough to do this organically and on a
> per-case basis.
>
> But basically, if someone authors a non-trivial patch, that person
> should *never* push themselves. Whoever reviews it should push it,
> adding the Reviewed-by field. The reviewer should also get an ACK by
> the team lead (via IRC or whatever) and add that to the commit before
> pushing.
>

Gotcha!, that makes sense to me.

>
> In a bigger project (or with a team lead with a lot of free time...),
> I would argue that the reviewer should send the new commit, with the
> Reviewed-by field added, to the team lead, which then adds the
> Acked-by field themselves, before pushing. I'm not convinced the
> benefits of this extra step outweighs the drawback in the overhead of
> this small community of ours.
>
> - --
> Alexander
> alexander@plaimi.net
> http://plaimi.net/~alexander
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlLYGpkACgkQRtClrXBQc7WA4AEAmghIHMkNxiqJ79CONZzs/k/u
> t0QoASddzlSruejiVaQA+QFOdbgMaA59hf9DInPAgpG7Kc6fbFENgkZn4jEY9NAq
> =CrCK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Thanks,

-- 
Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2686 bytes --]