From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31311F47C for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=web.de header.i=@web.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=s29768273 header.b=jdd3VujZ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233477AbjAWSDU (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42382 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230128AbjAWSDR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:17 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.4]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DC80CA0E for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:03:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1674496994; bh=A5c9UeYIK1wa49ejprpkc4Qhl2q/hpEz9Lw4t+SE3a4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=jdd3VujZX5tcT8cBCWs2LnJ/ZRbigy2+77pCKToSju1m79Gl0+/eEqbhVzMCl6Za1 xTSuJy/UOm+5JoiJ3VR58FjR6Zr8cQdwZ/7wBMD5OuzpNammUhzpPQx6rHXpnRGAbb 64tsMm6ARyqGcKgT9Dusn0nfpTMZ1TTtp1g80Bc6iHBRl840RXxSYl+Igx0xVNH1M/ pigzCu2ykaL/RQTyjvwoZ/QCe2n798AHTBgcWuiNDLxzkFHCF8pn9KlI3ajVKfTqbR 1HNKWeGBsZH+HXztx+RGM383IYJ8wPZK6j1CpSOGdfVkWE4sIMYQMRoawxaRJF97p9 wJXJJfUwgvLZg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from localhost ([62.20.115.19]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb006 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MgRMB-1olW8w1gjP-00hsZK; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:58:05 +0100 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:58:04 +0100 From: Torsten =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6gershausen?= To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much Message-ID: <20230123175804.2bkcr7yawyz5fhkb@tb-raspi4> References: <20230122071156.367jwwt3d5txvkl4@tb-raspi4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:v88nBuaFpeVdB8uzYO8TCPrNc8oaQS9df4L2GNfJrOWAImqh2aj yC7TnE95Du575oAqLqTvn7ygGxlwP2BvYVeSArmJsQmjTsRm8hDl79DqXiHuXfZ4Z7kkPPG sKdbYgNuE5Y7Wsk4wDRQ6W9GNHYCpasH5Kgci2dnrSVlCwoFik2ORtP3msFSRsEV4ZqDdig poHZzzvbTgdhFUHv0ejJw== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:N3BGb9QfQRs=;7QOLFhZh03pjmHkryKJYLd3/wIq Y00cjUSNsGyRA1R000QlEg/h+SS1qTqIMbIzXqXo19tPeIbJPGXeduDUyTA1sYD4usm3lLocM M33vc9+JOIAmWSF/jvgURYjTk75QytqwYasdHREcagyfRi+g8M7YkuZ/ar5Q+d5WdgMsKCBcA iE/5dzkyk6ofpc5xVf3KHLNm1RouhIO9cUHDU8SlNepwFx7mi+O1x2ePdudD/5x0VK/hhVciZ c3lDuJOL0z0bWaL9TuqEZyJjDBsW+QpY6OgpBmyJISkkFFrpZZmM0Ceny+ihrTQwXfqMathjS c6N6Ov1ASDnQw0hjuaaAUF2oAQvwCJ6Sk3rSCgo9NxXWHbvw1MY+Yny0iNMCTI/7b6XQ0K0XO rsAuYxQdvP85gAj5K8AGOUzQzfD52K2OXlRCMovk5iwKgICLzoRqNYH+nbfLPYPju5XwfLvOh AT72p36PoHmSnzBgqPCqmoO+PZ6LgVxdzYREjVFqbkzlCQs3JdChkhZs9bflc004bLzVcn4nw 3kJAaxctMWOEakW+DGlYKmPNqU0lAM9W+pwbXl3ug/TFqmfvdV9QhN2XjzuIhQNyxtOA9s15T prPkpzGDfbBKQCLbjvwElxXaG+oPg2htWKvKk/Tq5jRvEibAZef9jutheeqHHgWwfYshy/qDx 2jk2nxS233BvcHB7IhaJq/abe0gdFG538N6DkBsc+W7Wd2M5AKmIpAI3uGbByNja+CP0DgI+T x69bC2FXZ2Dmkk6276OEAdxvS+H5JXG5xFVJAdiuOJk7DERk6mFO9I4Rm+rRElXMIrsnJBSxF 13yrjBz06IJxjYinUnk8RSdSqjuHFnDhiZNcXwglH4ci1HJddRuD4teec8JQOqjtZ4OBXNsso DWHlOsM059Lh7Z9TkKRZbnucwR8LTSoSPQ8SAfaxh7GWKE+UDengzwoj55HC8glKkoWzXj+RF j3KMSQ== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 B=F6gershausen > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFir= stContribution.txt > index ccfd0cb5f3..3e4f1c7764 100644 > --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt > +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt > @@ -1256,6 +1256,36 @@ index 88f126184c..38da593a60 100644 > [[now-what]] > =3D=3D 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]] > =3D=3D=3D Responding to Reviews > > -- > 2.39.1-308-g56c8fb1e95 >