[PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[Jakub Kicinski]

It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index 2ab843cde830..c1c732e9748b 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
 patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
 bottom of the priority list.
 
+.. _Changes requested:
+
 Changes requested
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
@@ -359,6 +361,10 @@ Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
 version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
 ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
 
+The new version of patches should be posted as a separate thread,
+not as a reply to the previous posting. Change log should include a link
+to the previous posting (see :ref:`Changes requested`).
+
 Testing
 -------
 
-- 
2.41.0

Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 8/23/23 17:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
> if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
> managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.

For my setup it is also annoying.

(CC IWL + BCC to our pre-IWL list.)

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
>   Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 6 ++++++
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index 2ab843cde830..c1c732e9748b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
>   patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
>   bottom of the priority list.
>   
> +.. _Changes requested:
> +
>   Changes requested
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   
> @@ -359,6 +361,10 @@ Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
>   version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
>   ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
>   
> +The new version of patches should be posted as a separate thread,
> +not as a reply to the previous posting. Change log should include a link
> +to the previous posting (see :ref:`Changes requested`).
> +
>   Testing
>   -------
>   

Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[Martin Habets]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:49:22AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
> if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
> managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.

Is this something NIPA could catch?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com>

> ---
>  Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index 2ab843cde830..c1c732e9748b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
>  patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
>  bottom of the priority list.
>  
> +.. _Changes requested:
> +
>  Changes requested
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
> @@ -359,6 +361,10 @@ Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
>  version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
>  ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
>  
> +The new version of patches should be posted as a separate thread,
> +not as a reply to the previous posting. Change log should include a link
> +to the previous posting (see :ref:`Changes requested`).
> +
>  Testing
>  -------
>  
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0100 Martin Habets wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:49:22AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
> > if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
> > managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.  
> 
> Is this something NIPA could catch?

I think so, but the whole thing makes me feel bad. I mean, if I was 
to sit down to write some code I should probably try to hack up 
my email client to allow force-breaking threads?

Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[patchwork-bot+netdevbpf]

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>:

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 08:49:22 -0700 you wrote:
> It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
> if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
> managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

Here is the summary with links:
  - [net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/35b4b6d0c53a

You are awesome, thank you!
-- 
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

[Jacob Keller]

On 8/24/2023 8:29 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:08:54 +0100 Martin Habets wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:49:22AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
>>> if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
>>> managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.  
>>
>> Is this something NIPA could catch?
> 
> I think so, but the whole thing makes me feel bad. I mean, if I was 
> to sit down to write some code I should probably try to hack up 
> my email client to allow force-breaking threads?
> 

Yea if I were to do anything else here it would be figure out how to
make the tooling handle this better somehow rather than trying to
enforce not doing it.

However, I agree recommending avoiding this is good.

Thanks,
Jake