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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70295EB64DD for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 21:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233984AbjG1VWB (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:22:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58060 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231538AbjG1VV7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:21:59 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.4]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFE744AA for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:21:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1690579306; x=1691184106; i=tboegi@web.de; bh=bavTJw0USmbor1DYlSAzgfpra19yHTpkXnqXn0Y8NDQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=iCIKONUrbv6ypdeTRWGWiFQQwtGlgT0m2N2ZN9ZCI/SD84cNHs2nqRjos3R4dMErx7PqnOQ HXCqXV8xE67RUq6D/7WxU/6/Vb1G5KJg9TfHvAIrlazm7aNxFLKm0pLrAPdik0lDnryfIITc9 vH1jga7re2XE9Zh9Bx18ifG0fsWDcFBDhrCqAp+O34IWJLiriH+HsxhI8l6c4t8JW/Hem7+gJ tNvbch4OQ2Wy7wuol8PMbrqWEck1ovs+GAinMnHM7votQTw41XO9D31iPG99LJlTw6j4aDFIN m61hFwb23tnwT5phd2b7SQJu+KcwooBZDgDJN+8jb9iBaQep0/Hg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from localhost ([62.20.115.19]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb006 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Movne-1q5FZc07dm-00qGF5; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 23:21:46 +0200 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 23:21:44 +0200 From: Torsten =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6gershausen?= To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Arver , jacobabel@nullpo.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much Message-ID: <20230728212144.dpcbp6gfhfuiabia@tb-raspi4> References: <20230122071156.367jwwt3d5txvkl4@tb-raspi4> <20230123175804.2bkcr7yawyz5fhkb@tb-raspi4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:IVLLILU49rEdsElwdQCy1lf4XCsSsdliyRdhLcnbm5yZ7qk5Oyo 8UECoBsJcEHtvGUDCRntcz+LiK6ikvWWnne654cLy+zQTtpNV1s9IalWqaUsaNS7ORhq90z pXa6549flU+7+fHO6t6lIB6B2iFsRrL1dbasJF0Xs2G/cMOroOD5LZ933b2vY0m3KqAbTin GxjgjyorkqirSlErDFZ0A== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:eiVJgbItZBo=;LycsYmqRWN1O/jLdilCBP7sFscC WoAmnQ7E9QYPiyOEbadyYIbzoKgn2GpufIVJjp/pnz3nF+ZtYFJ0HSbsyRTK6spgg9XNItEm8 FjbfrAG70exzMz99IWD4tX1ghyilRYaLYHAYRY2dPzh6VIQ+mirZW2FCcwrFNBeW5ID9hZRLZ iMdjKt+gD75EQrJQklowu3OZ0L9DRb1zHrHa2Mi7vHLtzf16GBLhMs5tJXj0qRGSd8Z0hRVpU wg7BaeaaDUae66BatnPthXqJVahPniptgvAYnq0l/NEi35Shgd6AfCW3wo2Nx68w86YWzQwy4 OblW9tn/3gizjTbUIjk93qZr1yTLoYvP9Y0Tckvb2aVjlFh6gx433VHy87r3DzDsyB0/sm8Zs 1/WX5+jgvx3xA/n5DzDuIY+Reu9srYyEiSwrnfSC0rna5DZTJgi0y7ntyWwhkqp2SBpBdZ4/H v8JWsyQw02s6AaLhNAKYbk4KsqFJOmq6mIfttOnpPEClugyX63XijtOkOnuZD/jKRfnTAbSjj cm05GU9Ic+XnpvZYC/UJcEDblzjbfruBOx468iasz+mkP5DtqS1U8naSnbUu9NogV+LBHlGI4 zFgNkMsGRnlas2bq2vu/F0+uKn52RkeT/9ERer0m4r6P0t8u6xAknzjuSMNq+wzkPgE0G2kxc NCNUQwzafmDhrWH7rUnOXdXs62S3POwySIPh18nfpeXNQSsQr7V8i9PRbrBiyS5J+z4Xq8ZLK 5+4TzQTPwyJFn9HHrv++WbS+CtKqdcb03Gi08wE9Y3tj5U18epG/rVRBuaGcbhSdF4CVJkNYJ iOBq9PbMjyILmGmQRBK9PMzCUbnUSxvIWLnQhEYck4UnZ/uGh29MmYkQPNGABXiKU6TMtGJYU hfyUolG0tbKvbwIA5lbsUxY9Q7qexL2anORexu8iWP2MTo5oHbVZvG6r1P5DWycOsYpcwHxrQ vucpWA== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 05:43:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Finding mistakes in and improving your own patches is a good idea, > but doing so too quickly is being inconsiderate to reviewers who > have just seen the initial iteration and taking their time to review > it. Encourage new developers to perform such a self review before > they send out their patches, not after. After sending a patch that > they immediately found mistakes in, they are welcome to comment on > them, mentioning what and how they plan to improve them in an > updated version, before sending out their updates. That's all good, no possible improvements from my side. However, a possible question below. [] > +Please give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before > +sending an updated version. That is, resist the temptation to send a new > +version immediately, because others may have already started reviewing > +your initial version. > + > +While waiting for review comments, you may find mistakes in your initial > +patch, or perhaps realize a different and better way to achieve the goal > +of the patch. In this case you may communicate your findings to other > +reviewers as follows: > + > + - If the mistakes you found are minor, send a reply to your patch as if > + you were a reviewer and mention that you will fix them in an > + updated version. > + > + - On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so > + drastically that reviews on the initial patch would be a waste of > + time (for everyone involved), retract the patch immediately with > + a reply like "I am working on a much better approach, so please > + ignore this patch and wait for the updated version." > + (That's all good) > +Now, the above is a good practice if you sent your initial patch > +prematurely without polish. But a better approach of course is to avoid > +sending your patch prematurely in the first place. That is of course a good suggestion. I wonder, how much a first time contributor knows about "polishing", in the Git sense ? >From my experience, the polishing is or could be a learning process, which needs interaction with the reviewers. Would it make sense to remove the sentences above and ask people to mark their patch with RFC ? Or is this all too much bikeshedding, IOW I am happy with V4 as is.