On 04/28/20 18:35, Sean Brogan wrote: > I think this was my fault. > > I was under the impression that a patch needed one of developers listed > in the (m) or (r) section of maintainers.txt to provide a reviewed-by. > My new understanding is an ack from the (m) plus anyone providing a > reviewed-by is enough.
It depends on the maintainer, too. Personally I give R-b if I carefully review the patch and am pleased with it. I give A-b if I review the patch for general sanity, but don't dig into the details. I can also give A-b if someone I trust to do a good review in the subject technical area provides an R-b, regardless of whether they are an "R" or an otherwise un-designated contributor. With "R" folks the chance is higher for me to see such an R-b posted in the first place, of course. I do think an "M" person should provide "at least" an A-b, even if they delegate the actual detailed review to someone else. So yes, I think your understanding "is correct" (meaning, selfishly, that it mostly matches mine, anyway :)) Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58321): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/58321 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/73251653/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
