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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 70FCEC433E7 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F2421D6C for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1733179AbgJIR7T (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:59:19 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55422 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730110AbgJIR7T (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:59:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 9183 invoked by uid 109); 9 Oct 2020 17:59:18 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 17:59:18 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 4604 invoked by uid 111); 9 Oct 2020 17:59:18 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 13:59:18 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:59:17 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Chris Webster , "Chris. Webster via GitGitGadget" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: github action - add check for whitespace errors Message-ID: <20201009175917.GA963340@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20200922170745.GA541915@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:23:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think this is exactly the use case that > > After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the > patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{current-maintainer} > and "cc:" the list{git-ml} for inclusion. > > in Documentation/SubmittingPatches was written to address. > > I usually pay attention to majority of topics and have them on my > radar by getting involved in _some_ way in the discussion thread, so > I often know when the patch(es) matured enough to be picked up > without such a "this is the version after our discussion and it is > as close to perfect as we can possibly make" resend. > > But for some topics, I have no strong opinion on the exact shape of > the final patch(es), and/or I have no expertise to offer to help the > discussion to reach the final product. In such a case, I'd be just > waiting, without getting involved in the discussion, for trusted > others to bring the posted patch to a completed form. I think this > is such a case. As the other person in the discussion, I'm sufficiently convinced that doing this just for PRs is a good step for now. I.e., I think the "completed form" is just what was posted already (though I agree it is often convenient to the maintainer to re-post the patch as part of the ping). -Peff