Re: [PATCH v2] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much

["Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:18:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

The whole thing is much more convenient to read, so to say.
Some nit-picking inline.

> Finding mistakes in and improving your own patches is a good idea,
> but doing so too quickly is being inconsiderate to reviewers who
> have just seen the initial iteration and taking their time to review
> it.  Encourage new developers to perform such a self review before
> they send out their patches, not after.

I think that this is what V1 was about. Review first, send then.
Is there still so much focus on this ?
Or is it more about "what to do when it went wrong?"

How about this, or similar ?

...it.  Encourage developers to wait with a new version too early.
But if they plan to send one later, they are welcome to comment
their own work as they where reviers.


>
> Helped-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> index ccfd0cb5f3..3e4f1c7764 100644
> --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> @@ -1256,6 +1256,36 @@ index 88f126184c..38da593a60 100644
>  [[now-what]]
>  == My Patch Got Emailed - Now What?
>
> +After you sent out your first patch, you may find mistakes in it, or
> +a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch.  But
> +resist the temptation to send a new version immediately.
> +
> + - If the mistakes you found are minor, send a reply to your patch as
> +   if you were a reviewer and mention that you will fix them in an
> +   updated version.
> +
> + - On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so
> +   drastically that reviews on the initial patch would become
> +   useless, send a reply to your patch to say so immediately to
> +   avoid wasting others' time (e.g. "I am working on a better
> +   approach, so please ignore this patch, and wait for the updated
> +   version.")
> +
> +And give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before
> +sending an updated version.
> +
> +The above is a good practice if you sent your initial patch
> +prematurely without polish.  But a better approach of course is to
> +avoid sending your patch prematurely in the first place.
> +
> +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to
> +see your patch immediately after you wrote it.  Instead of seeing
> +the initial version right now, that you will follow up with several
> +updated "oops, I like this version better than the previous one"
> +versions over 2 days, reviewers would much appreciate if a single
> +more polished version came 2 days late and that version, that
> +contains fewer mistakes, were the only one they need to review.
> +
>  [[reviewing]]
>  === Responding to Reviews
>
> --
> 2.39.1-308-g56c8fb1e95
>