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 F3E051F4B4 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388085AbgJISNr (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:13:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65375 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725979AbgJISNr (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:13:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52047195F; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:13:44 -0400 (EDT) (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=/Cgi73TTA3tW2pwahOGJYbydp7o=; b=VwzMan X2/N0MwJbk9arnbZUx2azzKPoKk7c1BoRC99Spvt01fQ+C4QALnlARjxPcNukl9+ iFuo2hsuFtLV9jV0oyXkWO5WoGGxFXSd34GFAAWeWkzky8mjGHo8AU86znvE60gh UjhS/eeleMCqEueFT3dRYQUBPxjojFGNZSN80= 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=fEx/1/gezRXOEPyF8X25bupFN3deAm2/ L421VsuD182gxo4D+hfZSNFuaVusSEReDOdW/Z7W3Z7GR/wV793KnB1cejSUi/3h Z8nZU+F1UxmO+1kQOoJWSp6st0cgvqsrmW/N9MBha4zSkTEbpGIiOlFCLhwW0piH 60dU6KS5AIA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9517195E; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:13:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 245E27195A; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:13:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Chris Webster , "Chris. Webster via GitGitGadget" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: github action - add check for whitespace errors References: <20200922170745.GA541915@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20201009175917.GA963340@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:13:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201009175917.GA963340@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:59:17 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2AD221EE-0A5B-11EB-9670-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:23:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I think this is exactly the use case that >> >> 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. >> >> in Documentation/SubmittingPatches was written to address. >> >> I usually pay attention to majority of topics and have them on my >> radar by getting involved in _some_ way in the discussion thread, so >> I often know when the patch(es) matured enough to be picked up >> without such a "this is the version after our discussion and it is >> as close to perfect as we can possibly make" resend. >> >> But for some topics, I have no strong opinion on the exact shape of >> the final patch(es), and/or I have no expertise to offer to help the >> discussion to reach the final product. In such a case, I'd be just >> waiting, without getting involved in the discussion, for trusted >> others to bring the posted patch to a completed form. I think this >> is such a case. > > As the other person in the discussion, I'm sufficiently convinced that > doing this just for PRs is a good step for now. I.e., I think the > "completed form" is just what was posted already (though I agree it is > often convenient to the maintainer to re-post the patch as part of the > ping). Yes, and CC'ing those who were involved in the review would give them the last chance to say "oh, no, that extra change you added for this final submission was not something I meant to suggest!", etc. So, is as-is the one we should take? Thanks.