Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] refs: run copy and rename through transactions

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 11:44:15AM +0200, Maciej Ciemborowicz wrote:
>> Changes since v3:
>> 
>> * Rebase onto 6de20f6092 (The 4th batch, 2026-10-06), the master commit
>>   used in Junio's report.
>> * Preserve the packed preparation error in patch 2 as described above.
>> * Register t1425 and t1424 in t/meson.build in the commits adding them.
>
> Please engage with the reviewers. Just posting new versions without
> replying to them at all will very likely not get you anywhere. This kind
> of behaviour is nowadays a red flag and often hints at contributors who
> are basically just a meat proxy. And as a consequence, reviewers are
> very likely to disengage and stop reviewing your patch series
> altogether, which is frustrating to everyone involved.

Thanks for bringing this up.

A response to reviews on the N-th round must come long before
sending the v(N+1) round of patches.  Some contributors send them
after v(N+1), or immediately before, but the proper time to respond
is soon after receiving the reviews on vN and having had enough time
to understand the comments, before starting work on v(N+1).  Only
after that work is complete would you send the new patches.  Hence,
we expect the time between vN and v(N+1) from real contributors to
be measured in days, not hours.  Whenever I see vN responses arrive
after or immediately before the v(N+1) patches, or worse, no
response at all but just the new patches, it smells fishy.