All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	computersforpeace@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] Documentation: Provide suggestions on when to repost patches
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141215101319.GA6444@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1418623790-28429-5-git-send-email-cernekee@gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:09:50PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> Give submitters a rough idea of how long to wait before reposting, to
> help avoid situations where a series is reposted before the original
> submission is fully reviewed.
> 
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> index 41d324a..6cefb6c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> +++ b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> @@ -74,7 +74,10 @@ around.
>  One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
>  go away.  They will not go away.  If you repost code without having
>  responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
> -that your patches go nowhere.
> +that your patches go nowhere.  On the flipside, reposting an updated patch
> +before the original has been fully reviewed can be a source of frustration
> +too,

I'd like to make that aspect stronger/more explicit:

"Please do repost only after the reviewers have finished going through
your submission and you have collected, addressed and/or incorporated
their full feedback. You can use the time while waiting to test and
hammer more on your code. Any non-trivial submission of a patchset
should be resent after a full week (7 days) the earliest in order not to
spam people unnecessarily and to give them a chance to at least finish
reviewing."

Anyway, something like that, formulation might need more cleaning up - I
was just trying to express the sentiment...

> so consider giving the reviewers ~3-7 calendar days (depending on
> +patch complexity) before posting V2.
>  
>  Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
>  going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time

Thanks for doing this, btw!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-15 10:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-15  6:09 [RFC 0/4] Stop maintainer abuse Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-15  6:09 ` [RFC 1/4] Documentation: Change policy on sending patches during merge window Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-15  8:29   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-15  6:09 ` [RFC 2/4] Documentation/SubmitChecklist: Remind submitters to check the " Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-15 10:17   ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-16  6:48   ` Kalle Valo
2014-12-15  6:09 ` [RFC 3/4] Documentation: Add cutoff periods for patch acceptance Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-15 10:15   ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-15 14:59   ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-12-15 18:29     ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-15  6:09 ` [RFC 4/4] Documentation: Provide suggestions on when to repost patches Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-15 10:13   ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-12-16 18:09 ` [RFC 0/4] Stop maintainer abuse Jonathan Corbet
2014-12-16 20:35   ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-12-16 22:19   ` Kevin Cernekee
2014-12-16 22:31     ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-17  5:14       ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-12-17  9:52         ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-18 19:05           ` Mark Brown
2014-12-18 10:35   ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-12-18 10:42     ` Borislav Petkov
2014-12-18 10:53       ` Paolo Bonzini

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141215101319.GA6444@pd.tnic \
    --to=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cernekee@gmail.com \
    --cc=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.