GNU bug report logs -
#65924
git searches coreutils and util-linux commands in PATH
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 15:25 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> Hi Liliana,
>
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Am Montag, dem 09.10.2023 um 14:21 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> 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
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 215 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.