Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] doc: advise batching patch rerolls

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org> writes:

> +The right timing depends on the topic and the feedback. Larger series usually
> +need more review time. If the only comments so far are minor, such as typo
> +fixes, it often makes sense to wait a little longer in case deeper reviews are
> +still coming.

All sensible up to this point.

> If the comments require substantial rework, sending a new version
> +sooner may save reviewers from spending time on a version you already know will
> +change significantly.

I am not sure about this one.  Even though the intention to avoid
wasting reviewers' time spent on reading through the previous
version that will be invalidated is a good one, by definition, a
substantial rework will naturally take time, and it is better not to
rush and send an updated version with substantial changes that you
yourself haven't had a chance to thoroughly review yet.

In such a case, it would be a better idea to respond to the review
that made you realize a substantial rewrite is needed with a simple
"I'll make a substantial rework based on this comment, which would
invalidate this and that part of the current patch series, so please
do not waste reviewer cycles on these parts until I send an updated
series out" message.

> If the topic is close to being accepted and the remaining
> +comments are small, a quicker new version may also be fine.

I am not sure if this needs to be codified.

I often see (e.g., in patches from Patrick) that an iteration is
marked clearly as final candidate that the author is not aware of
any outstanding issues.  This encourages reviewers to ask "what
about this one raised there?"  to remind what is missed, or chime in
with "yup, this looks good" to show support.  Such a note is highly
recommended, but I do not see a need to say "the (supposedly) final
one is specifically allowed to be sent without waiting" even then.

Thanks.