Re: [PATCH v2] Writing down mail list etiquette.

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:45 AM Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> 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).

Agreed.

(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
Reviewed-By.

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

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras