From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: The lifecycle of a patch and the maintainer involvement Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:35:30 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3af7dsz1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <18805.64312.289059.660023@hungover.brentg.com> <7vbptzahra.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <18808.39712.351656.138702@hungover.brentg.com> <18809.60512.654436.59819@hungover.brentg.com> <18811.32772.728276.923430@hungover.brentg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Daniel Barkalow , Mike Ralphson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Brent Goodrick X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 25 21:37:11 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LRBj7-0001Bq-Ju for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:37:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751364AbZAYUfk (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751325AbZAYUfk (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:40 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:50389 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324AbZAYUfj (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D5993269; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E9FA93266; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:32 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BA599666-EB1F-11DD-87F6-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Brent Goodrick writes: > While I'm at it, what is the standard procedure for submitting git > patches for review once I've cooked up and validated it on my end? I'm > guessing posting the patch into this mailing list is part of the > answer to that question. Yes, a guideline is in Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the initial submission. After that, the lifecycle of a patch submitted on the list goes like this: (1) A patch is shown to the list participants. (2) People may like it, or may have issues with it, and responds with their comments describing problems, suggestions for improvements, etc. People who are not interested in the topic may stay silent. (3) The original author responds with updated patch. Sometimes people who commented on in step 2 may even send "here is how I would do this one; don't you think this is better?", and the original author may say "Yeah, let's use yours instead". (4) After steps 2 and 3 repeats zero or more times, the latest patch may become one that everyone likes, or at least nobody has trouble with inclusion. The author sends such a patch saying "this is meant for inclusion based on discussion and refinements in these threads...". (5) The maintainer picks it up when it looks polished enough. Your patch may appear in the periodical "What's cooking" or "What's in" summary with zero iteration of steps 2 and 3 if it is obvious enough. I act as just one of the list participant during steps 1-3. I may stay silent during this period but that only means the topic is not interesting to me and nothing more. It does not mean that the topic has no chance of getting included. I act as the maintainer for steps 4 and 5. If you do not hear from me after step 4, then I am either being lazy, busy, or sick, or the patch got lost in the noise and I need a reminder. Note that I may reject or ask further refinement at step 4 to ensure overall quality throughout the system even in areas I am not interested in and didn't say anything during steps 1-3.