[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dep3 nit-picks

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> [ moving to -devel from a private discussion to have more feedback ]
> Daniel was asking me how several unstructured paragraphs are supposed to
> be treated for the Description field. I told him that the description is
> the concatenation of all of them. Do other people agree with Daniel that
> the points that he raises need clarifications?
> DEP URL for reference: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 11/05/2009 02:45 AM, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
>> 4) Reviewed-By is semantically unclear.  I can review something and
>> decide it's a bad idea.  In that case, it has been reviewed by dkg, but
>> would it really be Reviewed-By: dkg?  probably not (i'm assuming there's
>> considered to be no semantic difference between Reviewed-By and
>> Acked-By).

Workflows can differentiate between Reviewed-By and Acked-By, but that's
not necessary (e.g., Reviewed-By indicates a positive review, Acked-By
indicates approval to commit).

>> I'm not suggesting that we change the header label
>> necessarily (and i don't know why it was changed from Signed-off-by to
>> Reviewed-by in the first place -- can you point me to any discussion
>> about that change?),


>> but if "Reviewed-By" is going to have any sort of
>> "stamp of approval" connotation, it should be explicitly noted someplace.
> It has an implicit meaning of approval yes. If the review was negative, it
> should not be added or it should be clarified in the Description what the
> reviewer's comments were (always a good idea).

Right.  I'd think that if there were a negative review, the proposer of
the patch would go back to work on it further before resubmitting.

GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

Reply to: