From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Re*: [PATCH v9] Documentation/remote-helpers: Add invocation section Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:59:17 -0700 Message-ID: <7v7hofzyvu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vsk77e20r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100407224942.GA20239@progeny.tock> <7vzl1eamss.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vfx3567e2.fsf_-_@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4BBE8BA1.1080101@drmicha.warpmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sverre Rabbelier , Jonathan Nieder , Ramkumar Ramachandra , Ilari Liusvaara , Daniel Barkalow , Gabriel Filion , Git Mailing List To: Michael J Gruber X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 10 07:00:00 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0SnX-000385-Ju for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:59:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751081Ab0DJE7m (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:59:42 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:43827 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750811Ab0DJE7l (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:59:41 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64793A947E; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:59:40 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=6SxAn6JH9JwBAy2nXQbMs/0AzFs=; b=ie9WFI Wx+aQezgWBeGC2qnLgTu8Ho0QBSMM/BhefQer2vxqzsbhIeJ+PRMBr5Zyb4Xd5Mg Q6JDLA36uJrbhtyymDaUrCUqIWDLJi8EeJWTkEmaf5Dy1PJEZdgICkoxY97aoURk QuDT5M7yPCGaUzVq38B5jHU94Z2hqm3Si6HJA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=AF9LBwYq1THzjkt8fikGuG8LPCCzvujH GMcL8vNW7xI5yC9eiVQcmuw7DsGPTwBaJtjroZ/B8UrFx2X2EluBB/9ac7Bf0U8b x/s+txr9/KZBVKb+Re6ZQ/RU2gwQSF15TVawWdjDaR28dNlNwx1+odfnIu7cLHuk K3TqO4Lwl3s= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B683A947A; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43DE0A9478; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:59:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4BBE8BA1.1080101@drmicha.warpmail.net> (Michael J. Gruber's message of "Fri\, 09 Apr 2010 10\:06\:25 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D8878470-445D-11DF-8E3B-D033EE7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael J Gruber writes: > I'm wondering how necessary that flipping of to and cc is. It means one > has to switch one's send-email config between RFCs and actual patches. This was my thinko. "An ideal patch flow" says the final submission still goes to the list with maintainer on the Cc: line, and that is fine with me. > It also means I should send fewer patches to you (Junio) directly (in > addition to cc'ing the list), which is probably the intention :) That, and more importantly, less uncooked patches hitting my mailbox with me as an addressee, was an important goal. I need to deal with patch e-mails in three different ways: (0) just read as a bystander without much interesting input from my side; (1) read and comment for improvement; or (2) act on it by applying. I was hoping if we can have some way for me to sift (2) from others without adding extra burden on the contributors. One way to reduce (1) I've been experimenting with is not to comment on too many threads. The theory is that the initial rfc patch hopefully does not have my address on To/Cc, but once I comment on a patch, follow-up patches will be posted with address of everybody involved in the discussion Cc:ed to the thread (which by the way is a good practice and I do not want people to break it), and my "grep for patch messages with my address on it" trick to find the finalized patches will not work well. But that strategy does not work very well for another reason: we lose one reviewer if I try to comment on patches as little as possible, and we do not have enough people who read other's patches and help polishing to afford that.