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=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 BB6111F40E for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757786AbcHCRAC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:00:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50102 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756585AbcHCQ7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:59:50 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3492B2FCEF; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:53:21 -0400 (EDT) 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=vFJI9yCbTO5pwkwUWXrWyCE768o=; b=dCKjfm O0Pjt+0yy851DalHRFkQBnFI84jypxjPABt6EKnOBK4gF1nZ/G5opkidkGUc+XOQ DYGaE0RqQboWsaP1S8KscQcgX3VwR8HtLRb2KzX/ZcKDi/2HcQWhVK6gmEZ0+waP KgaeBxYLn1SEyn9BGOnOmgntDVYR5BzysCsCo= 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=PbBDjO9eNWMg+in2qjiwlzkK+nvTXDeh Gu3bQ4Yh8Z6Mtkxxs7+Iy7Ujo6sLAUPgYj0APztMfAitFVW+bYxL0/StXPhPSE2b kOH03xkmvTq59obOaPH44FMkW9XbalKVFynwalS3jjoox65WHcGMXs0qXNWxvtxq ZdGPegVaYyc= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8EE2FCEE; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3C2E2FCED; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:53:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Na?= =?utf-8?Q?r=C4=99bski?= Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors References: <8ff71aba37be979f05abf88f467ec932aa522bdd.1470051326.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20160803163449.iwjv4youmsf6okme@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:53:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160803163449.iwjv4youmsf6okme@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:34:49 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C8A53EEA-599A-11E6-AF64-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > 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. Ah, yes, I misspoke. It should be either an incremental diff or in-line comment to spell out what got changed as a response to the patch. I find myself fixing the title the most often, which is part of the "log message" you pointed out that would not convey well with the "incremental diff" approach.