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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,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 7D12CC433DF for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338FC22284 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="l3qlrmsL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388301AbgJIS5C (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:57:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:56024 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388231AbgJIS5B (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:57:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062C7DC1ED; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:56:58 -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=EXHesWrSz3iOSKb/qP7oJokoE2k=; b=l3qlrm sLsARLWMJTMLobH/x2oTSbc2W10Ug+odgl720s1IAut84iMDCT0O2WpLIyxw3cVU HxLprjZkJsrRxCZLoRGFCCpFUcy2gvj1+lAQ5vYFawJCgEmT1RxECqPZcqir5OWJ MlTC1vzvC4Iw9pEQC9HoD+IaGyWqfv9ydP6V8= 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=xRJdlZon4anIe4gjn04kT/wkKpsYSESs m5Hl9+v1d0WEk/6e4TfVvpnCQ7YScA5KcPVTsZlxKxwAtDeoGbn39V0Jm7p4Ibun 4E34bVKzkMTIG/vquv4/+oSPo2O1x6szOfOmQgyb7maRv1MYOrK8no2g5Q3gVJYV MM7WG8QZ2wY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3543DC1EB; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:56:57 -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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C6FADC1E9; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:56:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Chris Webster , "Chris. Webster via GitGitGadget" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: github action - add check for whitespace errors References: <20200922170745.GA541915@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20201009175917.GA963340@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20201009181827.GA965760@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 11:56:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201009181827.GA965760@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:18:27 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 32D5932A-0A61-11EB-805D-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > 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). >> >> Yes, and CC'ing those who were involved in the review would give >> them the last chance to say "oh, no, that extra change you added >> for this final submission was not something I meant to suggest!", >> etc. >> >> So, is as-is the >> one we should take? > > AFAIK it's the only one on the list. :) So yes, that one is fine with > me. Thanks. Another thing the resending does is that it can credit who helped the patch into the final shape with Reviewed-by/Helped-by etc. If the maintainer must hunt for the names of those who had input to the discussion and judge the degree of contribution for a topic whose review has been delegated to trusted others, that defeats the whole point of delegation (I think the attached clarification may help). For this particular patch, I added Reviewed-by: naming you before applying. Thanks. Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git c/Documentation/SubmittingPatches w/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 291b61e262..87089654ae 100644 --- c/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ w/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -290,12 +290,14 @@ identify them), to solicit comments and reviews. :git-ml: footnote:[The mailing list: git@vger.kernel.org] 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. +patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{current-maintainer} +and "cc:" the list{git-ml} for inclusion. This is especially relevant +when the maintainer did not heavily participate in the discussion and +instead left the review to trusted others. Do not forget to add trailers such as `Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:` and `Tested-by:` lines as necessary to credit people who helped your -patch. +patch, and "cc:" them when sending such a final version for inclusion. [[sign-off]] === Certify your work by adding your "Signed-off-by: " line