From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.149]) (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 F2F851E48A for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 06:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.149 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751956707; cv=none; b=S/7zhNjxMYl4lGEx8EdAt4Z5s6VUOlbnLHJVqG8HEgB32bQ4g/DNCg9RKgTNzxrGAkz6PEiMC0eI6EmYdp6pXv17q3AFY6i1114ygqfKGmgnMtKcGn+6fI4DN/V1edbvqd4pz1M4EdbrDoN7agxUwfUN6RfAOH+BuQWnITxO5CA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751956707; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0c78/lcHR1V2MVG4//ia2+FVflmsQ57vv1eBVOzj9E8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tEpkt+a2VZbEmV1aQAqB++CCgAdwtxHOvt1A1fvYN6mn8ez7sAPbdji2R1g8LuW3OSgfxfOzryvNEZiQlJBcRTt2ZPDKn3wUWnQDscsoYOLAq2l1wn/gkdbZfiyx2H+9zZq6hwpkwwioq/vH1Hm1gv+ceU5IY3cXQI+DINe3RV8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=EE9SRgoZ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=nQxnuvp4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.149 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="EE9SRgoZ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="nQxnuvp4" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.phl.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC032EC04F2; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 02:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 08 Jul 2025 02:38:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding: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=fm2; t=1751956703; x=1752043103; bh=/vaG0vVTIJYTQO4121DbnUIS0ydeyI34M5gUXlVNTy4=; b= EE9SRgoZK1SZCAWIXyVfveqpA69vvf8IrHRgzRSnombXdGTJKdoEFllC6v+cFgCq 0NsVeVrsRMuzE/68hh2uioyrtE8UhtMeuuSJJ1nw9PcoB1KfvoD9IlDPG03EexoF BBCmkSvyTw9y15eIH1hp1zRvz3Y5A1L2O8CGsw4PuLtLiFoczZ3rDGER0AZw56s5 rf/vqkvvoPHTrTYzos19KukmwI9GwORPK64yhFlykdR8jGFXpQMDjLLaBPNf7xUg 6xr31KFH8rUetqq0AgRZBNXMhzV+4BLXgve2wO6BaB1TmGRKmaUm+AosW0bz2d+O +nGiYkzwKNpVsSdqEDi3/g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :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=fm2; t=1751956703; x= 1752043103; bh=/vaG0vVTIJYTQO4121DbnUIS0ydeyI34M5gUXlVNTy4=; b=n Qxnuvp4gynqEB55lMXpc+f8ADFCAG+6Ha4mC9JeU6qVFvuiNBpKuztgieoRZFK0a y7X2VvhSOmp9OgiRMx0GSrjsC/YSbJWIVgYgTMxSQVY57X3XdjApye6NAG4KQod1 XwhdnA1h5bxuPMB1x+d/hsd0yqVN/Nvdi9HA0k9767zLWDFf29/t1uGNi47y64+U GMYZu+etQZVpNJgk0R6wDICnX0dDPbM6vbgggS7IMPvpGwKZ40dk9KmrnAMrPfBJ 8fvlxmEPmEk7q2QdRAemgrp1pHZgJEtMRZ4gd/+ssh/yQke0j3Xxh+SoHeQlnq8Q 9k7QGdODAJ9oXt6K3JgYA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgdeffeelkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgt khcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epgeektdfhudetkedufeeutdevteevleelfeehuddufffgheegheevffeifeeiheehnecu ffhomhgrihhnpehgihhtlhgrsgdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeek pdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehpvghffhesphgvfhhfrdhnvghtpd hrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishgtohholhesthhugihfrghmihhlhidrohhrghdprhgtphht thhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhish htihgrnhdrtghouhguvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshgrnhgurghl shestghruhhsthihthhoohhthhhprghsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsth gvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhhrghnnhgvshdrshgthhhinhgu vghlihhnsehgmhigrdguvgdprhgtphhtthhopehnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 02:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c684f459 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Tue, 8 Jul 2025 06:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 08:38:17 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, Elijah Newren , Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Johannes Schindelin , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fast-(import|export): improve on commit signature output format Message-ID: References: <20250618151821.528627-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20250619133630.727274-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 10:03:12PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 12:58 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > >> Christian Couder writes: > >> > >> > This v4 is just about fixing a few bugs in the tests using the SHA-256 > >> > object format compared to the v3. (I had issues with CI tests on v3, > >> > so I sent it without waiting for the results.) > >> > >> We haven't heard much after a few comments were posted on this > >> latest round, since Elijah's > >> <20250619133630.727274-1-christian.couder@gmail.com>; I understand > >> that it would be the author's turn to respond (the response does not > >> necessarily have to be with an updated iteration). If so, let me > >> mark the topic as Stalled in the draft of the latest issue of the > >> "What's cooking" report. > > > > I will hopefully send a v5 later today. > > Thanks. > > By the way, I noticed that you often do not respond to reviews until > the last minute, at the same time as when you send your next > iteration, or even soon after doing so. > > That is quite different from how other contributors operate, i.e. > respond and engage in discussions triggered by the reviews, and > after people involved in discussion got an (even rough) idea of what > the right next step would be, if not a total consensus, send the > next iteration. > > I do not know which style is more efficient form of cooperation, but > it somewhat makes my job harder, if I do not hear much _heartbeats_ > after I see review comments on the list. I do not mind waiting for > seeing the next round for quite a while---after all, any substantial > (re)work takes time. And responding to reviews may need thinking > things through carefully, which may take some time, so I would not > demand an immediate response, either. But it would be nearly > impossible to feel the current status of such a topic---a few review > comments are seen, the author goes silent for a while, we cannot > tell if the author is working on a new iteration or where the author > and reviewers agree and disagree. > > Also a review response that comes at the same time or immediately > after a new iteration is already sent out makes it look like the > author is refusing to continue discussion and reviewers are not > welcome to make follow-up suggestions during such a discussion. > > Instead, the next iteration comes as a fait accompli, and makes it > less useful to continue the review discussion on the previous round > by responding to such a late response. I agree with your points. Overall, a fast response cycle is key to good collaboration from my point of view. I think it not only makes your life as a maintainer easier, but it also makes the reviewer feel like they are being heard and is the prerequisite for good discussion. On our team's handbook page [1] we have the following couple of bullet points regarding how to respond to reviews: * Respond to feedback that you have received as fast as possible. A fast exchange is a prerequisite for a fruitful discussion and ensures that you keep momentum. * On the other hand, it shouldn’t be necessary to respond to every small typo correction in case you will send out the next version soon anyway. If it will take a while before you send the next version though it is nice to acknowledge nits, but mention that you will hold off sending a new version of the series until you got more feedback. * Consider the viewpoint of the other person and be ready to disagree and commit. Do not ignore feedback that you have received, as that will lead to frustration and a decreased likelihood for that person to review your future patch series. Patrick [1]: https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/infrastructure-platforms/data-access/git/#iteration