* patch protocol question
@ 2017-03-07 21:29 Tobin C. Harding
2017-03-07 23:12 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tobin C. Harding @ 2017-03-07 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernelnewbies
I would like to know the correct protocol in order to make the
maintainers job as easy as possible please.
Once a patch has been reviewed and the review makes good points that
mean the patch is invalid/unnecessary what is the protocol from then?
Assuming one replies to the reviewer with thanks and acknowledging
their points. Is it then protocol to state that you are not going to
pursue the patch further? How do maintainers know to not bother any
more with a patch?
Similar question; if the last patch of a patch series is not needed
should one resend another version without the last patch or is there
an accepted protocol to signal this so that the maintainer only looks
at merging the initial patches in the series.
thanks,
Tobin.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* patch protocol question
2017-03-07 21:29 patch protocol question Tobin C. Harding
@ 2017-03-07 23:12 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2017-03-08 3:56 ` Tobin C. Harding
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Senna Tschudin @ 2017-03-07 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernelnewbies
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> I would like to know the correct protocol in order to make the
> maintainers job as easy as possible please.
>
> Once a patch has been reviewed and the review makes good points that
> mean the patch is invalid/unnecessary what is the protocol from then?
I usually go for a beer when a patch I sent is not needed(two if my
patch breaks something). If you agree that your patch is not needed,
this is the end.
> Assuming one replies to the reviewer with thanks and acknowledging
> their points. Is it then protocol to state that you are not going to
> pursue the patch further? How do maintainers know to not bother any
> more with a patch?
There is no universal rule that covers all cases, but in general if a
maintainer states that a patch is not needed, this is the end. Unless
someone(can be you) makes a point that clarifies the need for your
patch. In the later case the discussion will make it clear what to do
next.
>
> Similar question; if the last patch of a patch series is not needed
> should one resend another version without the last patch or is there
> an accepted protocol to signal this so that the maintainer only looks
> at merging the initial patches in the series.
It is easier for the maintainer to let his/her automation to take care
of the entire series. So the extra work you are going to have to
re-send will save the maintainer some work, so resend the series if
one of the patches are not needed. Exception here is if the maintainer
asks you to do differently.
>
> thanks,
> Tobin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kernelnewbies mailing list
> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
> https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
--
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* patch protocol question
2017-03-07 23:12 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
@ 2017-03-08 3:56 ` Tobin C. Harding
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tobin C. Harding @ 2017-03-08 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernelnewbies
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 12:12:50AM +0100, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> > I would like to know the correct protocol in order to make the
> > maintainers job as easy as possible please.
> >
> > Once a patch has been reviewed and the review makes good points that
> > mean the patch is invalid/unnecessary what is the protocol from then?
>
> I usually go for a beer when a patch I sent is not needed(two if my
> patch breaks something). If you agree that your patch is not needed,
> this is the end.
>
> > Assuming one replies to the reviewer with thanks and acknowledging
> > their points. Is it then protocol to state that you are not going to
> > pursue the patch further? How do maintainers know to not bother any
> > more with a patch?
>
> There is no universal rule that covers all cases, but in general if a
> maintainer states that a patch is not needed, this is the end. Unless
> someone(can be you) makes a point that clarifies the need for your
> patch. In the later case the discussion will make it clear what to do
> next.
>
> >
> > Similar question; if the last patch of a patch series is not needed
> > should one resend another version without the last patch or is there
> > an accepted protocol to signal this so that the maintainer only looks
> > at merging the initial patches in the series.
>
> It is easier for the maintainer to let his/her automation to take care
> of the entire series. So the extra work you are going to have to
> re-send will save the maintainer some work, so resend the series if
> one of the patches are not needed. Exception here is if the maintainer
> asks you to do differently.
Got it.
thanks,
Tobin.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-08 3:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-07 21:29 patch protocol question Tobin C. Harding
2017-03-07 23:12 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2017-03-08 3:56 ` Tobin C. Harding
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).