From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35057C433C1 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE10E61987 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230220AbhC3Ann (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:43:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:55117 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229628AbhC3AnM (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:43:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0328B126B78; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:43:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=jDfJv1CJA2jI29/Ko4gT1KMke8A=; b=eBXJL5 Brvs7cssVsukEKpQdIw/HamwRdAccs/mB0gS+m65HXMwAHc9AgqzVr86QhOw8Gj3 /v6s2AYSTst1AMTDs73UWK687Um1gW8E4R0WEwZd3bFWp0DtLGkaKy5Al/tjXlAI uGsbc7t81gz2JjD338g6WemGDvfq72sCEGvsk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=btkbExp5StY97XQYVgSTFE8A12jWSjgp rdqnquWGOmVuSl5J8sGS9wjiVueY8o1yDpqXb7aM9MkmBLpVel++7a7ovnGsEXRR rmS1tkHIxjQyJLFVCPSpr5QpHyKtT2PwA80w35mtTcw07acN57BAH6PS0F1pL7jc Lscxd5doHTI= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0AF8126B77; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:43:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32DBE126B75; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 20:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: Bagas Sanjaya , git Subject: Re: Upstreaming Reviewed-by to git.git References: <0e32b0af-cd05-39a9-51a9-4d983e7085cc@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:43:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:03:53 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: E61E63EC-90F0-11EB-9B9B-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > In any case, reading others' patch, together with the original > version before the patch changed, is a great opportunity to learn > the codebase and how the project work in general. It is highly > recommended. Addendum. The above makes it sound as if I am encouraging new people to only read to learn silently, but that is not what I meant. Reading and then expressing what you read in the patch in your own words is a good way for you to learn the system. And it is also a good way for the patch author to ensure what was written in the patch is understandable. For somebody who is totally new to the codebase, any patch that is more complex than the most trivial might not be hard to understand and that is not a patch author's fault, but once contributors have learned the codebase enough, even before they have their own changes to our codebase, a new patch should be written in such a way to understandable by them without getting misunderstood. So a mere "this looks good to me" by new people may not add much value to the discussion, but thinking aloud in more detail, expressing why they think the patch is good, e.g. "I think this change tries to do X by doing Y. If I were doing so, I might do so by Z, but I think Y would be a better approach than that" would help others to see that what is written in the patch was truly understandable (if what the new person said was to the point) or misleading (otherwise). Thanks.