[PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Justin Tobler]

Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
could avoid duplicating work.

Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.

Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
 you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
 
+It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
+previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
+progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
+considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
+aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
+allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
+area.
+
 . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
   them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
   respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
   them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
++
+It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
+feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
+series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
+input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
 
 . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
   who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).

base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7
-- 
2.53.0.381.g628a66ccf6

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Junio C Hamano]

Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:

> Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> could avoid duplicating work.
>
> Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
>
> Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

What's written in these two new paragraphs are all agreeable, but is
the first addition in the right place with correct mark-up?

This whole section is a sequence of bullet points that shows "a
typical life cycle of a patch series".  The first bullet point
starts with "You come up with an itch." and the second one is "You
send the patches", whose end part is what we see in the pre-context
of the patch, ending with "help you find out who they are."

If the new paragraph is meant as yet another paragraph to elaborate
on that second bullet point, wouldn't we need that "a line with only
a single '+' on it" before it, instead of a blank line, and the last
line of the first new paragraph should not be such a "single '+'"
line but a plain vanilla blank line?

> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
>  you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
>  help you find out who they are.
>  
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.
> +
>  . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
>    them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
>    respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
>    them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
> ++
> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
>  
>  . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
>    who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
>
> base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Justin Tobler]

On 26/03/05 12:35PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> > to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> > in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> > could avoid duplicating work.
> >
> > Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> > reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> > broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
> >
> > Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> What's written in these two new paragraphs are all agreeable, but is
> the first addition in the right place with correct mark-up?
> 
> This whole section is a sequence of bullet points that shows "a
> typical life cycle of a patch series".  The first bullet point
> starts with "You come up with an itch." and the second one is "You
> send the patches", whose end part is what we see in the pre-context
> of the patch, ending with "help you find out who they are."
> 
> If the new paragraph is meant as yet another paragraph to elaborate
> on that second bullet point, wouldn't we need that "a line with only
> a single '+' on it" before it, instead of a blank line, and the last
> line of the first new paragraph should not be such a "single '+'"
> line but a plain vanilla blank line?

Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with
'+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a
blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.

Thanks,
-Justin

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Junio C Hamano]

Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:

> Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with
> '+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a
> blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.

I have the following queued on top.  If there is nothing else, I
can just squash it in.

Subject: [PATCH] SQUASH??? mark-up fix

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 5acd692ad7..359f5fb74e 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
 they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
 you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
-
++
 It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
 previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
 progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
-- 
2.53.0-621-g5d45fffb26

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Justin Tobler]

On 26/03/05 01:35PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with
> > '+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a
> > blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.
> 
> I have the following queued on top.  If there is nothing else, I
> can just squash it in.

Perfect. Thanks for fixing. :)

-Justin

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
> Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> could avoid duplicating work.
>
> Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
>
> Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask
> them for help,
>  you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+
> would
>  help you find out who they are.
>
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list,

This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote
(git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.

Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which
prominently features the address at the start.

> or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.
> +

This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the
effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to
try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that
they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a
history.

>  . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
>    them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
>    respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
>    them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
> ++
> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.

This addition makes sense including its placement.

>
>  . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
>    who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
>
> base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7
> --
> 2.53.0.381.g628a66ccf6

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Justin Tobler]

On 26/03/05 11:27PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
> > +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> > +previously on the mailing list,
> 
> This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote
> (git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.
> 
> Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which
> prominently features the address at the start.

We also mention "the list" several times in the surround bullet points
prior to the footnote too. If we think it matters I can move the
footnote up.

> > or whether similar work is already in
> > +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> > +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> > +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> > +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> > +area.
> > +
> 
> This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the
> effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to
> try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that
> they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a
> history.

Ya, I agree that most folks who feel inclined to read this document
proactively would likely also lookup previous/on-going mailing list
discussions. I do think this would be useful though to include so we can
point contributors this direction when needed.

Thanks,
-Justin

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2026, at 02:48, Justin Tobler wrote:
> On 26/03/05 11:27PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
>> > +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
>> > +previously on the mailing list,
>>
>> This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote
>> (git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.
>>
>> Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which
>> prominently features the address at the start.
>
> We also mention "the list" several times in the surround bullet points
> prior to the footnote too. If we think it matters I can move the
> footnote up.

Yeah that can be solved separately also. :)

>> > or whether similar work is already in
>> > +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
>> > +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
>> > +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
>> > +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
>> > +area.
>> > +
>>
>> This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the
>> effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to
>> try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that
>> they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a
>> history.
>
> Ya, I agree that most folks who feel inclined to read this document
> proactively would likely also lookup previous/on-going mailing list
> discussions. I do think this would be useful though to include so we can
> point contributors this direction when needed.

That sounds good to me.

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

[brian m. carlson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --]

On 2026-03-05 at 19:38:36, Justin Tobler wrote:
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.

This seems reasonable.  We've had cases of patch series that have
stalled due to a minor issue and someone wanting to send a patch may
find that they really could fix that minor issue on top of the existing
patch and have their problem solved.  Or at least, they might be
inclined to not get stuck in the same way.

I try to do this anyway, but it's much easier on forge-style systems
than it is on a mailing list, so mentioning it may help refresh people's
memories.

You could, if you wanted to, link to `{gitml}` after the phrase “the
mailing list,” which might help folks find the right location.  Or you
could link to the https://lore.kernel.org/git/ archives instead via a
footnote.

> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.

I think this is a good idea, too.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]