From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AB41FD99 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932993AbcHJVQP (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:16:15 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59207 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933028AbcHJVPk (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:15:40 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF13A33352; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:14:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QKiihS9OYTiK3ZTfhPtRjDPlmCs=; b=LW1dlw zBZ+pjqIZFFgERYHDjUYIT+LrKgnN3AAEqd+WRmBht2WXE6vreubr+rW/Dhwwrsl KfJFz9gRSuzIHgbLqRe5OyCSmVlZDiZBc7JOIjo96ZtZ3bl3mtEl8gIl79EjEQW1 yNtETLmZinXs7TQ5jQ7TluM061WChs4ULTXR0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=WEPsdv72u3vDHfJ7c4X/L0KeOPxw1OxU xdfLRF0XzePRc6KOI5Xwi8+jkhJCy/1MsttdkTJRUlY7fU2SLhe7IztKh90yGVI7 C6P3i+vdkUi6SB9QlvNuYfOiBjoClAOcWthctUgolrl20EnaTBPaokDRolM2Mlf4 fto+Ud4jLpg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54FF33351; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BB0833350; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:14:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Josh Triplett Cc: Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Eric Wong , Michael Haggerty , Johannes Schindelin , Stefan Beller , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Richard Ipsum , Lars Schneider , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors References: <6c937f79-2b82-619d-51fe-adccbe09bd66@alum.mit.edu> <20160809182800.GA19044@dcvr> <20160810005548.gee6ontd33ck5vej@x> <20160810193057.s36wfcivlfm3xmh2@x> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:14:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160810193057.s36wfcivlfm3xmh2@x> (Josh Triplett's message of "Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:30:58 -1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6A4F4EA8-5F3F-11E6-A82E-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Josh Triplett writes: >> But submission is less important than review. And for review it is >> usually better (except gigantic series) to have patch text for review >> with the review. > > Agreed. However, submission typically requires more work than review, > because the patch text must remain applicable. For review, as long as > the email client you use to respond doesn't do something horrible like > *re-wrap* the quoted patch text, the result will work as a review. Yup. That is why we say "please send patch inline; when asked to send it as an attachment, please do so".