From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BAC1F40E for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753185AbcHCQey (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:34:54 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:53830 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751501AbcHCQex (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:34:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 5641 invoked by uid 102); 3 Aug 2016 16:34:52 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:34:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 1764 invoked by uid 107); 3 Aug 2016 16:35:20 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:35:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:34:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:34:49 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?B?TmFyxJlic2tp?= Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors Message-ID: <20160803163449.iwjv4youmsf6okme@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <8ff71aba37be979f05abf88f467ec932aa522bdd.1470051326.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:33:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > > I disagree, however, with the suggestion to sift through your `pu` branch > > and to somehow replace local branches with the commits found there. > > To be more in line with the "e-mailed patch" workflow, I think what I should > do is to send the version I queued with fixups back to the list as follow-up. > Just like reviewers review, the maintainer reviews and queues, the original > author should be able to work in the same workflow, i.e. reading and applying > an improved version of the patch from her mailbox. Leaving aside Dscho's questions of whether pulling patches from email is convenient for most submitters (it certainly is for me, but I recognize that it is not for many), I would much rather see incremental fixup patches from you than whole "here's what I queued" responses. The reason is that your fixups may not be the only ones needed. There may be others on the list that come before or after, and I may even have already made fixes locally for "v2" that haven't been on the list. If I haven't made any changes yet, I can throw out my topic, start with what you queued, and then apply other changes incrementally. But if I have, then I need to convert yours to a diff, which requires checking out the same base, applying yours, and running diff. Much easier to get the diff in the first place. :) That only covers changes to the code, though. It does not help with fixups to commit messages. It would be neat to have a microformat for specifying and applying patches to commit messages. -Peff