| Message ID | xmqqzga9opdu.fsf@gitster.g (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much | expand |
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:18:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: The whole thing is much more convenient to read, so to say. Some nit-picking inline. > 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. I think that this is what V1 was about. Review first, send then. Is there still so much focus on this ? Or is it more about "what to do when it went wrong?" How about this, or similar ? ...it. Encourage developers to wait with a new version too early. But if they plan to send one later, they are welcome to comment their own work as they where reviers. > > Helped-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > --- > Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt > index ccfd0cb5f3..3e4f1c7764 100644 > --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt > +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt > @@ -1256,6 +1256,36 @@ index 88f126184c..38da593a60 100644 > [[now-what]] > == My Patch Got Emailed - Now What? > > +After you sent out your first patch, you may find mistakes in it, or > +a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch. But > +resist the temptation to send a new version immediately. > + > + - 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 become > + useless, send a reply to your patch to say so immediately to > + avoid wasting others' time (e.g. "I am working on a better > + approach, so please ignore this patch, and wait for the updated > + version.") > + > +And give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before > +sending an updated version. > + > +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. > + > +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to > +see your patch immediately after you wrote it. Instead of seeing > +the initial version right now, that you will follow up with several > +updated "oops, I like this version better than the previous one" > +versions over 2 days, reviewers would much appreciate if a single > +more polished version came 2 days late and that version, that > +contains fewer mistakes, were the only one they need to review. > + > [[reviewing]] > === Responding to Reviews > > -- > 2.39.1-308-g56c8fb1e95 >
diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt index ccfd0cb5f3..3e4f1c7764 100644 --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt @@ -1256,6 +1256,36 @@ index 88f126184c..38da593a60 100644 [[now-what]] == My Patch Got Emailed - Now What? +After you sent out your first patch, you may find mistakes in it, or +a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch. But +resist the temptation to send a new version immediately. + + - 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 become + useless, send a reply to your patch to say so immediately to + avoid wasting others' time (e.g. "I am working on a better + approach, so please ignore this patch, and wait for the updated + version.") + +And give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before +sending an updated version. + +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. + +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to +see your patch immediately after you wrote it. Instead of seeing +the initial version right now, that you will follow up with several +updated "oops, I like this version better than the previous one" +versions over 2 days, reviewers would much appreciate if a single +more polished version came 2 days late and that version, that +contains fewer mistakes, were the only one they need to review. + [[reviewing]] === Responding to Reviews
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. Helped-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)