Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

[Andrei Rybak]

Hello,

It seems to me that this part of Documentation/SubmittingPatches is
not actual nowadays:

  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{1} and "cc:" the
  list{2} for inclusion.

From what I observe in the mailing list, most patches are sent with
"To:" set to mailing list (or re-sent with increasing version) , as per
previous paragraph in the guidelines [1].  Then, after the topic is
reviewed and the [PATCH v<last>] series receives a thumbs up from a
number of people, the maintainer--Junio C Hamano--replies with an email
containing something along the lines of "This change is in good
shape.  Thanks, will queue.", which makes me think that the re-send
is not actually needed.

Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
correctly?

[1] "Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:"
    listing people who are involved in the area you are touching"

--
Best regards, Andrei Rybak

Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:

> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
> correctly?

I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).

Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

[Andrei Rybak]

On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
>> correctly?
> 
> I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).
> 

Does that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is
a re-send?

Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:

> On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
>>> correctly?
>> 
>> I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).
>
> Does that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is
> a re-send?

When I am not interested in a topic, or there are other reviewers
who are more qualified and are interested in the topic than I am,
the protocol to require the final "Here is a verbatim final resend,
the only difference from what was reviewed is the reviewed-by's from
the reviewers." will let me completely ignore the topic while it is
being discussed (as long as I trust the judgment of these reviewers).

Otherwise I'd need to keep track of the progress of the discussion
on each and every topic, which is often impossible.