mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Felipe Contreras <>
To: Eric Sunshine <>,
	Felipe Contreras <>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <>,
	Dave Huseby <>,
	Git List <>,
	Christian Couder <>,
	Junio C Hamano <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Writing down mail list etiquette.
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 03:32:10 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <609b928aeb66e_6e4e9208b7@natae.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:45 AM Felipe Contreras
> <> wrote:
> > Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > In practice, the maintainer could instead merged v5 (without having me to
> > > send v6 [final]), because v5 is merge-ready in absence of maintainer's
> > > email address in either To: or Cc:.
> >
> > Generally you don't need to worry about this, that's Junio's job. If
> > your patch is ready, Junio will merge it... But not always.
> >
> > So no, you don't need to send v6, Junio will pick v5. If he doesn't,
> > it's most likely because it slipped through the cracks, and you can see
> > that in the next "What's cooking in git.git".
> >
> > If you don't see your merge-ready patch series in "what's cooking", then
> > by all means send it again as v6, or reply to the "what's cooking" or
> > something. But generally there's no point in sending a v6 identical to a
> > v5.
> >
> > But if you already sent a v5 that is is merge-ready, there's no need
> > to send an identical v6.
> >
> > All these suggestions are of course based on my own experience. Others
> > might have different experiences.
> This has been my experience, as well. I've never sent a v6 with Junio
> as an explicit recipient, but which was otherwise identical to v5.
> Another reason to avoid sending v6 which is identical to v5 is that it
> potentially wastes reviewer bandwidth.
> The advice which seems to have triggered this particular discussion
> comes from Documentation/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{current-maintainer} and "cc:" the list{git-ml} for
>     inclusion.  This is especially relevant when the maintainer did
>     not heavily participate in the discussion and instead left the
>     review to trusted others.
> It's not the first time this advice has resulted in confusion. Perhaps
> now would a good time to retire it altogether, or at least rewrite it
> to mention the points you gave above about responding to "What's
> Cooking" or by sending a "ping" to the original patch email (which may
> result in Junio either picking up the patch or responding with an
> explanation as to why he didn't).


(Although sometimes a patch series of mine has actually received
consensus, and yet for some reason Junio does not pick it up. Except
in that case sending a v6 certainly would not improve the situation. Not
sure if that's specific to me though.)

> Following the above SubmittingPatches paragraph is another which also
> seems to mislead people frequently:
>     Do not forget to add trailers such as `Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:`
>     and `Tested-by:` lines as necessary to credit people who helped
>     your patch, and "cc:" them when sending such a final version for
>     inclusion.
> In fact, a submitter should almost never add a Reviewed-by: trailer
> because Reviewed-by: is explicitly given by a reviewer only when the
> reviewer is satisfied that the patch is merge-ready, in which case no
> more re-rolls are expected. Instead, these particular trailers are
> almost always added by Junio based upon reviewer responses he sees
> when picking up a patch.

I don't fully agree with that comment.

At least me personally if I see people acking v5, I add them to v6 as

I'm not sure if that makes any difference to Junio, but that's what I've
historically done.


Felipe Contreras

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-12  8:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-12  2:54 [PATCH v1] Writing down mail list etiquette Dave Huseby
2021-05-12  2:57 ` Dave Huseby
2021-05-12  6:25   ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-12  3:18 ` Dave Huseby
2021-05-12  3:18   ` [PATCH v2] Writing down mail list etiquette Dave Huseby
2021-05-12  4:07     ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-05-12  6:45       ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-12  7:35         ` Eric Sunshine
2021-05-12  8:32           ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2021-05-12 14:36           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-12  4:46     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-12  8:45     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-12 23:34     ` [PATCH v3] doc: writing down Git mailing " Dave Huseby
2021-05-13  0:20       ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-13 17:17         ` Dave Huseby
2021-05-13 20:04           ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-13 21:11           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-13  4:06       ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-05-13  6:34       ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-13  7:01       ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-06-09 17:36       ` Felipe Contreras
2021-06-18 20:43         ` Dave Huseby
2021-06-18 23:48           ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-12 15:28   ` and... Re: [PATCH v1] Writing down mail " Philip Oakley
2021-05-12  6:21 ` Felipe Contreras

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:

  List information:

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=609b928aeb66e_6e4e9208b7@natae.notmuch \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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 public inbox

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).