From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596731F5AE for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 08:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230363AbhELIda (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 04:33:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37884 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230357AbhELIdZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 04:33:25 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72987C061574 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id f75-20020a9d03d10000b0290280def9ab76so19872263otf.12 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v36yIFaE8OE729I+yNsKoUveNGrQYieX2gf0RKKKGNo=; b=B3zgEw1GFOvqF1NTGffPrvOweWAOJSO48nqq5dR/KICC2BWCL6GogKM39C7lfe2pjg /RI3kRua5WQauwfskiYQaAnJQ36wGuZ3NrY8jaF2TA7vnWLJfFk3FQHzMZxopwODTQFY LQF7ZjwBa2WxDWfKVLptq88p+1GqbiDpVxYRzMKrNaB02Cy80V44NPCFFnhQbdwfiqSQ 6ULD7IwWtmibLCEw/cXs2uqpNbGTvGursGpjW8ews2PgTUED8SmGcK2qgJuPqOBhSIXu /QKYp3WeqJ5hZrrza0yllczbt1JxP4kXRotg0KmBiZhFpSIHJj9nTxA4lTzH1YhhmVp+ PFBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v36yIFaE8OE729I+yNsKoUveNGrQYieX2gf0RKKKGNo=; b=oEJuQtkt19IXPdpS3shRKYxCxzRMtp+l+DEwKMHQxanU7+RrKgacMBwv769YIk8eCJ UjILMhVyWx1BjRBINZ2opMFJqoaOh4YeFvCaBEADnGLIfWVy/TWe4iCtNhGFWTi8SIao +U7SYiEfQNNDK0qZN1hZjmDrybNKwcqbTQLpNBnt/k+M32WgTp+LaBxDnjjFbaD6NjW0 gTu+3IlEciY//eK0wxt9Bc5FgIMjeEqnEB18McrcV266wZS/IIx82SqNCxTeNDBTWm6n GiYuiS5/UMHG7o0T9Ym5W30OHMsnC71NnItKe2uAiljd68c8jttXeM/GGcFRVlho7ehg 6cRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532g0z9zMA5lp4nuZcUhgTr9WRkt/Y2o9ASu5SAEroUZObZLQ05g vb4uS4i9Q+qDe40XXzLQMUo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzj9ci0ndyWDZvL8FjcvkssTS27smKnTiBKg21kmjWyulgkXHCJeCKKF1qATkTuR0EWswzY0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7049:: with SMTP id x9mr3964837otj.20.1620808335807; Wed, 12 May 2021 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fixed-187-190-78-172.totalplay.net. [187.190.78.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm2807098oiz.39.2021.05.12.01.32.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 May 2021 01:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 03:32:10 -0500 From: Felipe Contreras To: Eric Sunshine , Felipe Contreras Cc: Bagas Sanjaya , Dave Huseby , Git List , Christian Couder , Junio C Hamano , stefanmoch@mail.de Message-ID: <609b928aeb66e_6e4e9208b7@natae.notmuch> In-Reply-To: References: <20210512025447.6068-1-dwh@linuxprogrammer.org> <20210512031821.6498-1-dwh@linuxprogrammer.org> <20210512031821.6498-2-dwh@linuxprogrammer.org> <80e0215a-cd00-57f9-afb6-b85b33dba91d@gmail.com> <609b797a818bb_6d897208ce@natae.notmuch> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Writing down mail list etiquette. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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). 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