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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 EB74F1F4B4 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726738AbhAOFyZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:54:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:64429 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726167AbhAOFyS (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:54:18 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732881133BF; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:53:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=MQ02cZqzRAhQoisfRF6JqRvJcW4=; b=R5/qSc rsLF46HpJL9p7zSnggkX7URx0upavZIXalUJ4lAzGb4dv7M6HQneywFWF3//ANej KfkY89elTWtZqpSZ7WY/3LpwxyaVd4kQYT2Tshs3FWDcOm/1jglFc863qbfR7gH1 +w7G8wiXW4n2NOc9i4U09SztCQVRWBSEctDuA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rhTDtgbUrRsTa+92QUf91VP2I26pefHi P9cRgqvoWboNq6zgA+pSRRv7GWxXEp3u+mDdK7DeoeOIcBedIvIXYmVLHqqWfO+1 2n6emPgrFs9uWNboIdzqtyH0kVM9kIIJ2YE9g8+DBkVEWdGWaNY6wzRJA1y/kKPO R766TuCC0lU= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9C81133BE; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:53:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACBA41133BD; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 00:53:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Philippe Blain Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Sixt , Johannes Schindelin , "brian m . carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] mailmap doc: create a new "gitmailmap(5)" man page References: <20210105130359.21139-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20210112201806.13284-2-avarab@gmail.com> <6612514d-051a-1e58-7ea1-c00428882f2d@gmail.com> <4c9123c0-ee35-11aa-04dc-8ffe79781507@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:53:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4c9123c0-ee35-11aa-04dc-8ffe79781507@gmail.com> (Philippe Blain's message of "Thu, 14 Jan 2021 22:36:46 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0005C320-56F6-11EB-9BFF-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Philippe Blain writes: > I'm still not sure I have should have sent it as a reply to the commit it's > fixing (as I did), or to the last commit of the series, or to the cover letter, > or as a new thread to the list... what's the etiquette around this ? I can deal with any of the above, but with the goal of keeping the list archive most useful for later readers, I would imagine that it would be best if such a follow-up fix were made against the specific step (if there is such a single step) that introduced an issue (in other words, where you would have squashed your fix into, if it were under your control to redo the series). If there is no such single step and the fix applies to the whole series in general, a response to its cover letter would also do, I would think. Thanks.