Re: [Outreachy][PATCH] promisor-remote: honor promisor.fetchOrder when trying remotes

[Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>]

On 11/6/26 04:25, Tatchou Yopa Nelly wrote:
> Hi Tanga,
>

Next time try to make sure the person you are writing to is in the To/Cc 
fields as appropriate. Otherwise, there is a chance that they will not 
even receive your message since not everyone reads the list by 
subscribing to it.> Kaartic, I've also re-read 
SubmittingPatches#describe-changes and
> rewritten the commit message to describe the change rather than
> address the reviewers directly.

That is good!

> On the RFC point: I treated the
> Phase 2 config work as the micro-patch and skipped the RFC step
> you pointed out. Should I step back and send the design RFC first,
> or keep the current patch as a prototype while we discuss the
> config shape on the list?
> 

I think treating the current patch as a RFC patch and discussing the 
shape is a good idea. The only concern I have is that this patch is 
submitted in the context of Outreachy and the candidate that we may 
potentially pick will work[note 1] on this during their Outreachy 
internship period. So, discussing this now sounds a little premature to me

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that no two people should work on 
related areas. I'm just thinking it might be ideal to avoid premature 
work among Outreachy contributors before even the Outreachy selections 
are out.


[note 1]: During the candidate discussion, it may also happen that we 
may not pick a candidate for the project. It is totally fine to work on 
this in that case as there will be no conflicts. But none of this is 
clear now, TBH.

-- 
Sivaraam