From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2461F453 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726465AbeJYNP1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:15:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:39520 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726332AbeJYNP0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:15:26 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id r10-v6so6869891wrv.6 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:44:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=JUnJ76AI59evh0xTMYRTfxBoemU43mmMADUhCPPoQYo=; b=Fc9nm15z0PL27GiC77Z2ccdp4X10nMocnjJF1arlwgETBbigOIU0FJI5e6uI51o+jZ 5gdppIMTXAx1HoacPH1Revhh+ozwzDyfwatE0jUIK62kjxYYWTG7LWL2L1Dhlxl5QhBY ireNjXpwdseig/bjuciW8ge2kQnkTyC3OLGrHKHP0/Oo4Q4Ky0di9oWyxruiQl1GVLZ9 lUgUy2/EJkMRnKetr4lSJJh3ULg0T9lq07NbnTD2i+q90Qc7VLcWdJkaFOQqmr8ruuBQ g5OXzU3Hyf1hofXDT4YVRVMtgb7XzO7em7vG096XK6N7IT5vFNipphoepG9x8lFTieMs SCDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=JUnJ76AI59evh0xTMYRTfxBoemU43mmMADUhCPPoQYo=; b=RoeVFBZvA/GecXRTeP7EU/lCCfcmeczxRbitWs7hQBkzEhTJUX6rUNKs7b7BRCQXr+ ytpX6O+Wwcb75JbA/NBUDug2YmdMfPtnLXMNq2DH2Cw8Vc9kQIF7q5+H7xbeKWUPPTtA R+lci79xswz1AjWzWI9FbUwNf1Ikjd3YKovj/6Mjf+CohCGOo4t9thpmvIteKbMabfaN BKD1vJrSxC/8j9xftPRVw7cmR+Xu5go1nrEGQcV+XZQimbvujpI0AKxQz4+0vvIXVtrL ZXXEMKhE15muHsjSc7T6CFjrrS4pZsafo0XZxXZwxIssVNyx9t2ljyWsO2iSzF0znaKx wT7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJW+ct4xiy7e4SIZip1XceHIMQNCHAYSHlCJ931IR2Vh1+1+s0G sw3i4abnWbRAOjjv/IY8+fs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cCkZ9UgGeLSeeCD7bxjDBFi6BdwfTsaZVeqr6Hs3A0mIv+ql5w5Yq9jI8M0EP2c3YbHupUCg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:608e:: with SMTP id w14-v6mr29806wrt.193.1540442665780; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o17-v6sm7078385wro.2.2018.10.24.21.44.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:44:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Slavica Cc: Christian Couder , git , Johannes Schindelin , slawica92@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [Outreachy] t3903-stash: test without configured user name References: <20181023162941.3840-1-slawica92@hotmail.com> <45cf8bf9-adfa-655e-0ded-fdb71707f7ad@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:44:23 +0900 In-Reply-To: <45cf8bf9-adfa-655e-0ded-fdb71707f7ad@gmail.com> (Slavica's message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:56:06 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Slavica writes: > On 23-Oct-18 8:52 PM, Christian Couder wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:35 PM Slavica wrote: >>> This is part of enhancement request that ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. >>> The issue is discussed here: https://public-inbox.org/git/87o9debty4.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/T/#u. >> We prefer commit messages that contain as much as possible all the >> information necessary to understand the patch without links to other >> places. >> >> It seems that only this email from you reached me. Did you send other >> emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3? >> >> [...] > > Okay, I will change that. This is my first patch and I am still adapting. > > Emails for patches 2/3 and 3/3 because aren't there because I am still > preparing them. > > (I didn't know if I had 3 patches in plan that they should be sent at > almost the same time.) It is more efficient for everybody involved. - You may discover that 1/3 you just (thought) finished was not sufficient while working on 2/3 and 3/3, and by the time you are pretty close to finishing 2/3 and 3/3, you may want to update 1/3 in a big way. Sending a premature version and having others to review is wasting everbody's time. - Your 1/3 might become perfect alone with help from others' reviews and your updates, but after that everybody may forget about it when you are ready to send out 2/3 and 3/3; if these three are truly related patches in a single topic, you would want to have what 1/3 did fresh in your reviewers' minds. You'd have to find the old message of 1/3 and make 2/3 and 3/3 responses to it to keep them properly threaded (which may take your time), and reviewers need to refresh their memory by going back to 1/3 before reviewing 2/3 and 3/3 One thing I learned twice while working in this project is that open source development is not a race to produce and show your product as quickly as possible. When I was an individual contributor, the project was young and there were many people with good and competing ideas working to achieve more-or-less the same goal. It felt like a competition to get *MY* version of the vision, design and implementation over others' adopted and one way to stay in the competition was to send things as quickly as possible. I didn't know better, and I think I ended up wasting many people's time that way. That changed when I became the maintainer, as (1) I no longer had to race with anybody ;-), and (2) I introduced the 'pu' (proposed update) system so that anything that was queued early can be discarded and replaced when a better thing come within a reasonable timeframe. And then I re-learned the same "this is not a race" lesson a couple of years ago, when I started working in a timezone several hours away from the most active participants for a few months at a time. I do not have to respond to a message I see on the list immediately, as it is too late to catch the sender who is already in bed ;-) So take your time and make sure what you are sending out can be reviewed the most efficiently. Completing 2/3 and 3/3 before sending 1/3 out to avoid having to redo 1/3 and avoid having reviewers to spend their time piecemeal is one thing. Making sure that the patch does not have style issues that distract reviewers' attention is another. Sitting on what you think you have completed for a few days allows you to review your product with fresh eyes before sending them out, which is another benefit of trying not to rush.