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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 9E0501F5AE for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 23:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231792AbhELXxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 19:53:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:56150 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231627AbhELXde (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 19:33:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3E9145848; Wed, 12 May 2021 19:32:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=RBQDlG54TvbQ j9vTfZ24a6SGOFsBX4nrlNmhI5OdBiY=; b=t/u6td7cVVRaWVEk3OLchgNvoVbg HbPN5foKCTb9VHDgRkC9vtDBgHDVNfKA5O8oYRZBaialelDEAR64pO2PYkQ+HBjU XB8hI5XnLh0c+3wtAsbwvxDFKsfZrOv+Q4hK2i9WXFSsJYUmqiaqHZ2exNfaJzGt 5dO/uLcCu9uKOqI= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450A8145847; Wed, 12 May 2021 19:32:23 -0400 (EDT) (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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80266145846; Wed, 12 May 2021 19:32:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Long Teng Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] packfile-uri.txt: fix blobPackfileUri description References: <20210511064554.59924-1-dyroneteng@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 08:32:18 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Long Teng's message of "Wed, 12 May 2021 22:10:29 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4BE190D6-B37A-11EB-A557-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Long Teng writes: >>It seems that the above needs a bit more polishing? >> >>I am not sure if moving the sign-off higher and inserting a >>three-dash line before "Jonathan Tan writes" would be sufficient, >>but with everything under that quoted material does not seem to >>belong to a proposed commit log message proper. > > Sorry, I misunderstood. > > I looked at some patches in the community. If I reply to the > reviewer=E2=80=99s suggestion separately and then submit a new patch, i= s it > the recommended way? (Distinguish between the =E2=80=98reply=E2=80=98 a= nd the > 'patch'). Yes. Some people seem to omit the final response to reviewer suggestions on the previous round and just send a revised patch, but it is much nicer to cleanly conclude the review cycle for the previous round with a separate response (it could just be "yes, you're right---I'll incorporate your suggestions in the next round, thanks") before starting a new cycle. And the "patch" side should be written to be understandable even by those who do not have access to the review history of the previous round(s)---imagine how it appears in "git log" output to those who did not read the discussion on this mailing list, and write for them. Thanks.