From: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: tools@kernel.org
Subject: Re: b4: use new trailers in 'b4 send --resend'
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:44:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240426184425.23b606bf@booty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240426-jasper-sloth-from-neptune-82a6f7@lemur>
Hello Konstantin,
thanks for your quick feedback.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:11:29 -0400
Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 02:01:57PM GMT, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > first of all: thanks for b4, I love it when sending my patches!
> >
> > I found a little issue when resending a patch series with unmodified
> > content, but with new trailers received after the initial sending.
> >
> > This are the events involved:
> >
> > 1. send a patch series (b4 send)
> > 2. receive some Reviewed-by, but patch not applied and no changes
> > needed
> > 3. update trailers (b4 trailers -u)
> > 4. resend (b4 send --resend)
> >
> > At step 4 I would expect b4 to prepare a [PATCH RESEND] series with
> > the new trailers added. Instead b4 resends the exact same series,
> > without any new trailers.
>
> This is the expected behaviour, as far as I know. There should be no
> differences between the series, otherwise it's not really a resend.
>
> It's not really necessary to resend a series just for trailer changes
> anyway. The maintainer will most likely use b4 to retrieve it anyway,
> and that will pull in any new trailers.
I cannot recall exactly when it did happen and provide a link right now,
but I clearly remember having been asked by some maintainer to do
exactly this, instead of pinging.
The rationale is that sending a new version just to add review tags was
considered bad because one can expect the patches or commit description
to have changed somewhat, which it hasn't.
OTOH resending without new trailers can lead to applying a patch
without those tags (not recognizing reviewers time), or even worse to
discard a patch because it does not show the needed tags.
It all made sense to me. Does it look reasonable to you too, with this
extra explanation?
Best regards,
Luca
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-26 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-26 12:01 b4: use new trailers in 'b4 send --resend' Luca Ceresoli
2024-04-26 15:11 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2024-04-26 16:44 ` Luca Ceresoli [this message]
2024-04-26 18:04 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2024-04-29 10:17 ` Luca Ceresoli
2024-04-29 14:36 ` Mark Brown
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=20240426184425.23b606bf@booty \
--to=luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com \
--cc=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tools@kernel.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.