From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch,
f.fainelli@gmail.com, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net v3 09/14] docs: netdev: add a question about re-posting frequency
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 21:25:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220330042505.2902770-10-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220330042505.2902770-1-kuba@kernel.org>
We have to tell people to stop reposting to often lately,
or not to repost while the discussion is ongoing.
Document this.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
index 9c455d08510d..f8b89dc81cab 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -140,6 +140,17 @@ No, please resend the entire patch series and make sure you do number your
patches such that it is clear this is the latest and greatest set of patches
that can be applied.
+I have received review feedback, when should I post a revised version of the patches?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Allow at least 24 hours to pass between postings. This will ensure reviewers
+from all geographical locations have a chance to chime in. Do not wait
+too long (weeks) between postings either as it will make it harder for reviewers
+to recall all the context.
+
+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.
+
I submitted multiple versions of a patch series and it looks like a version other than the last one has been accepted, what should I do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that.
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-30 4:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-30 4:24 [PATCH net v3 00/14] docs: update and move the netdev-FAQ Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 01/14] docs: netdev: replace references to old archives Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 02/14] docs: netdev: minor reword Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 03/14] docs: netdev: move the patch marking section up Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 04/14] docs: netdev: turn the net-next closed into a Warning Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 05/14] docs: netdev: note that RFC postings are allowed any time Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 06/14] docs: netdev: shorten the name and mention msgid for patch status Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 07/14] docs: netdev: rephrase the 'Under review' question Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:24 ` [PATCH net v3 08/14] docs: netdev: rephrase the 'should I update patchwork' question Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 23:40 ` Florian Fainelli
2022-03-30 4:25 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-03-30 4:25 ` [PATCH net v3 10/14] docs: netdev: make the testing requirement more stringent Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:25 ` [PATCH net v3 11/14] docs: netdev: add missing back ticks Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:25 ` [PATCH net v3 12/14] docs: netdev: call out the merge window in tag checking Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:25 ` [PATCH net v3 13/14] docs: netdev: broaden the new vs old code formatting guidelines Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-30 4:25 ` [PATCH net v3 14/14] docs: netdev: move the netdev-FAQ to the process pages Jakub Kicinski
2022-03-31 9:30 ` [PATCH net v3 00/14] docs: update and move the netdev-FAQ patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220330042505.2902770-10-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.