On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:28 PM Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: > > Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:27 PM Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:07 PM Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > My primary grip with approvals or the 👍 button is that it's the wrong > >> > granularity. It's per-MR instead of per-patch. When people are > >> > regularly posting MRs that touch a bunch of different stuff, per-patch > >> > review is pretty common. I'm not sure I want to lose that. :-/ > > Could a hybrid approach work? Marge could just add: > > Approved-by: @jljusten > > to the commit message based on the state of the MR. But, for MR's where > r-b is more appropriate, the developer can still manually add > Reviewed-by. > > Personally I don't find adding the r-b and force pushing to be much of a > burden, but I could see how in some cases of a small MR, it could be > nice to just click some buttons on the web-page and be done with it. > > But, I really would like Marge to add something to the commit messages > indicating who approved it. Yeah, you can get that info today by > following the Part-of link, but there's no guarantees about that being > around forever.
Part of the deal with gitlab was that sysadmins would be keeping the gitlab links working at least in a static form if we ever decided to turn down gitlab. Just like bugzilla still responds to queries even after we decided to migrate away.
