From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A7933F8C1 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 17:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781718657; cv=none; b=uH/5AT0z4bQrOpq7Md/8YDP7eDDYSprmuHUrh4lP4G/OxOFyba6zPFgvBbIhG3w5lcDe9wEM+Mea9rgBlKh5lW+yjHllz0kvtZo1e1EwLIxaddRtIINwiCLs0ylvUoSU2jpsXJASfhvVTz5mEx950ENRdKslHkfQf9k+Wi70ycU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781718657; c=relaxed/simple; bh=laTvIXVg/a2fLlNUAXPjXHmjsYxWCY98oCRYvkuXp+Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y7owEk/WolJY68dqqIkcMSYIsCE3iNePG8VbgSHDhwLsyq/dde7I9+7drpsxiSIj2p/rC2Xv4a3CdG7M59vjD14ThwlHC/x5jvAZ2HlqkFCi+glFIvmqBs7XKsOwV4sAdMJwPr5traR0KRtEeFqE9BbMRq85fPRaYC5FznnqKtY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=U1lQgTEJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=PDn7kzBo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="U1lQgTEJ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="PDn7kzBo" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA8D7A00F9; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:50:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1781718654; x=1781805054; bh=PdhygIVOdu 2WB0+0Ex41AdYm2/zOhASFWStUankSmI4=; b=U1lQgTEJarnOYKslSO06J6Stc3 km4oseD15EZ/MRFytlQ6MjQCTkDOM776lxibASiwtQYlJy+zEFGsDbzoPA31EJuq G7K6UNl89U4u21dkfjJKwDBGq5VkqoLbYyA6a0kG/4D9eHK4tI0WQIivzBUeAlS6 jvRGTnpABZhY/wmHdYqsoIAy/VH+YQDScDoyWnLajUrR5sxrE5Wi0p+iVHw5HJU9 jqItdTE/M8ZNBKAZZPMAsrG6yHhyvGcQj2pHD+VfHVPn7jC3wGWDEumvGJoSdUGc xYWPol9/wk8u9UEB59Us1LxOACi/JlCQj19l6pol1HIaA1eQcXxStyfl+oGQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1781718654; x=1781805054; bh=PdhygIVOdu2WB0+0Ex41AdYm2/zOhASFWSt UankSmI4=; b=PDn7kzBoyr0khGbQNYi5h8mLmKB/PtCXTxSrVr+oc9/oaf/+Yc1 pH/afSUVomB8hCx57Ud0/iRMQeAdxlbF31Z+XoXEm2+QEPV4r4xJogoAzoVkTMN/ JAgAA+7scTucinYedUrS8T+tZy/YNKHxcEMweQCFo4IRbJWfKDKi/svXo+CtaH7f 4g9+m0u0cEhGbqnxlh2TvNOY6IzuD/h4kEz4DH7+0fST5+viqWofcd6aDXUvQEk7 N35Qd7ZkUlttgl7n/A5+AmjJkJUW2/IqmaTCMg5RaS9851/e0ODKwCnpr6VejxCM iRzEPnBi4nPdSBpf+VVIV6I3m4MtTuKWHbg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFihhk2AN375MGKeQTQUemTYGkwHERtoFqgRu459SwrBOwvB3mFZlnv1EnMkEW+ZQ nZUWGDGhFXN14sDB1L4HvD0JGCFpYwa0TdxNTW9RZHFog1xO1VgeghkgT4V0FTgNnaLL8m Dv8jsYfQBM/0J3zBGjulSpf5rAsRfic72Bmnn0F2msmC8cFJvReq2jiTBFgHjAeWp+6qwP rRX2sR1jTiPVLL6O1Xx82lkC3CYIfbVhrUA3M9JcIHG2w30iorQ//jbZYCdYS0gEgztqMN g1Oy1mEGTuoslZxP9LbwDnYD0U0bySsJJ9nH948tMiYX+etEAk1xclxi3PV9pk3NqeUnJJ hGRJ0NHg0S9wDspehb+7ILcVvJITuL6MyqMxQ6pKRkUiLAZ8oAPDray98+W8aSfVPy2hQU DDiTPIPbjbOvfmgx8cRtKZe9GiLQyf6fBJgDqZQ/44tK3+/f8Xb04wzRMVi136PpxPckjK ykjGVS7ETIXfcS0gp0eJSV84yFYxQ3BXaDUbcD90lvglEQtKD2Vln6PoPoG7ZJcV7ypPte uXPoIM8w/OUD17aVFKNMsKrBPBKCznchDopexgPrqn7ztvOIEdDnZWEf5sCT4CILrHwSu0 9k73cYYL0+b6MrRloYTVIcBFaQk3S2V4j0Zq648sOvZuPBhCPCHAiZ3qArPw X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:50:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Weijie Yuan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] doc: advise batching patch rerolls In-Reply-To: <496a08c74ddd9368587d032da7117520af1478ae.1781714757.git.wy@wyuan.org> (Weijie Yuan's message of "Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:51:34 +0800") References: <496a08c74ddd9368587d032da7117520af1478ae.1781714757.git.wy@wyuan.org> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 10:50:53 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Weijie Yuan 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.