On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@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?), http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/141581 >> 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. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <james...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
