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=-4.1 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 1087B2047F for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752544AbdHDQAz (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:55111 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160AbdHDQAy (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:54 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3F9981D8; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:48 -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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=JZuYFSk4naEJ BL4vh3cC2+5dtVo=; b=OqVzfZgGZouLxmi/18HfdNZJAAO18CWnYg8S3Pj334UZ Pm0NgdWT2LCUeSvaYbi7l/KyVmzDz718m33kXeWkj9djYtRngi789fX86m/6Ix// RTs5UajdhP0EWyViuTw5VDSrahuJAQvl7jRo+y6quIlJD4b22j92xdIlIKh56u4= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=KB3sEs PsOD0ZWTMcG7Qe9ueeW53RUckOJL2wm0q6LtNCm2sUvC/2+GYKxxez+mRsuk2/o6 iO3Xk7cmU+dvVc2VGnzAUVdWTBYTMEztwcHYI08AgAxbNFSxf5oCfHcWonrEhsI8 VC5t8vPVrniY84g7cHkQCm/TxV/J+X3+tp8qU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59DA981D7; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:48 -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 38E88981D6; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Cc: Git Mailing List , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] builtin.h: take over documentation from api-builtin.txt References: Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:00:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: ("Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren=22's?= message of "Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:18:59 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 14CC382E-792E-11E7-B16C-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Martin =C3=85gren writes: > Since this is my first code contribution to Git, I'll ask about this pa= rt of > SubmittingPatches: > > "After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the > patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer [*1*] and "cc:" the > list [*2*] for inclusion." > > I will boldly assume that I should not be doing this. It seems to me th= is > doesn't happen very often or not at all -- possibly because you tend to > be involved in virtually all threads anyway, before the list reaches a > consensus. Yeah, that is in the "ideal patch flow" section, isn't it? We rarely achieve the "ideal" and often instead go for a more expedited option, it appears---perhaps I should try to be less involved in individual patch reviews and place more review burden on other reviewers ;-) In any case, it was a pleasure to cheer-lead on the progress of this series. Thanks.