From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.1858.1588183430996425021 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:03:51 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Q8nncqr4; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 205.139.110.61, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588183430; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vFZgJgIekwcYrZjiPtEv45YW56lMh5XunR2zsm1V7c8=; b=Q8nncqr4qp6F9V0ze585U5Ih3nec3GEkWKODlP3VJi0GI5I1TXF3FhLTQtzECoZ2Twi7la ZwPe081M0RdrgKV+fXm0ijfiyuYA721cZ4vIrv7uE2oNfiv8zLEGxkjB5rrNR8iqKP2MrH 2+2IcOLT27AqXMe/jGbfOhDgmZAlD5w= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-252-KW5bmVY_OrySX17eJtu-PA-1; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:03:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: KW5bmVY_OrySX17eJtu-PA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E94641005510; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-114-1.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.1]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5516F5C1BE; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] Edk2 Platform and Core CI for ArmVirtPkg, EmulatorPkg, and OvmfPkg To: Sean Brogan , devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.kubacki@outlook.com Cc: Andrew Fish , Ard Biesheuvel , Bret Barkelew , Jordan Justen , Leif Lindholm , Liming Gao , Michael D Kinney , Ray Ni , Sean Brogan References: From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <38d73ec4-ce01-d6a6-c2dd-5e925afa2084@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:03:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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