git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] myFirstContribition: answering questions is not the end of the story
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 21:42:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <33e4b940-2560-83b7-1015-100c16c71345@iee.email> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq3613vrtx.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On 20/11/2020 17:52, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> A review exchange may begin with a reviewer asking "what did you
> mean by this phrase in your log message (or here in the doc)?", the
> author answering what was meant, and then the reviewer saying "ah,
> that is what you meant---then the flow of the logic makes sense".
>
> But that is not the happy end of the story.  New contributors often
> forget that the material that has been reviewed in the above exchange
> is still unclear in the same way to the next person who reads it,
> until it gets updated.

Yes!

> While we are in the vicinity, rephrase the verb "request" used to
> refer to comments by reviewers to "suggest"---this matches the
> contrast between "original" and "suggested" that appears later in
> the same paragraph, and more importantly makes it clearer that it is
> not like authors are to please reviewers' wishes but rather
> reviewers are merely helping authors to polish their commits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>
>  * Something along this line, in a more condensed form, may also
>    want to be in SubmittingPatches, but let's start with a longer
>    form that is easier to discuss the intent of the addition to see
>    if it is a good idea.  I've seen a patch that got reviewed
>    falling thru the cracks without producing a v2 too many times.
>
>  Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git c/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt w/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> index 60eed5edcd..bac4997e39 100644
> --- c/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
> @@ -1143,11 +1143,24 @@ After a few days, you will hopefully receive a reply to your patchset with some
>  comments. Woohoo! Now you can get back to work.
>  
>  It's good manners to reply to each comment, notifying the reviewer that you have
> -made the change requested, feel the original is better, or that the comment
> +made the change suggested, feel the original is better, or that the comment
>  inspired you to do something a new way which is superior to both the original
>  and the suggested change. This way reviewers don't need to inspect your v2 to
>  figure out whether you implemented their comment or not.
>  
> +Reviewers may ask you about what you wrote in the patchset, either in
> +the proposed commit log message or in the changes themselves.  You
> +should answer these questions in your response messages, but often the
> +reason why reviewers asked these questions to understand what you meant
> +to write is because your patchset needed clarification to be understood.

Perhaps a paragraph break here?
> +Do not be satisfied by just answering their questions in your response
> +and hear them say that they now understand what you wanted to say.
> +Update your patches to clarify the points reviewers had trouble with,
> +and prepare your v2; the words you used to explain your v1 to answer
> +reviewers' questions may be useful thing to use.  Your goal is to make
> +your v2 clear enough so that it becomes unnecessary for you to give the
> +same explanation to the next person who reads it.
> +
>  If you are going to push back on a comment, be polite and explain why you feel
>  your original is better; be prepared that the reviewer may still disagree with
>  you, and the rest of the community may weigh in on one side or the other. As

Is this also worth mentioning in SubmittingPatches?

With or without the paragraph split

Reviewed-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>




  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-20 21:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-20 17:52 Junio C Hamano
2020-11-20 21:42 ` Philip Oakley [this message]
2020-11-20 22:34   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-24 20:14   ` Emily Shaffer
2020-12-01  4:46     ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-21  2:54 ` Philippe Blain
2020-11-21 21:53   ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=33e4b940-2560-83b7-1015-100c16c71345@iee.email \
    --to=philipoakley@iee.email \
    --cc=emilyshaffer@google.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).