{"thread":{"id":"47948","subject":"Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?","startedAt":"2018-02-28T21:31:31Z","lastAt":"2018-03-01T21:43:39Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Andrei Rybak","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"340621","messageId":"48b5c506-6882-81e2-35f6-7d040bfc6017@gmail.com","threadId":"47948","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?","fromName":"Andrei Rybak","fromEmail":"rybak.a.v@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-02-28T21:31:21Z","receivedAt":"2018-02-28T21:31:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rybak.a.v@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/624072?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nIt seems to me that this part of Documentation/SubmittingPatches is\nnot actual nowadays:\n\n  After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the\n  patch, re-send it with \"To:\" set to the maintainer{1} and \"cc:\" the\n  list{2} for inclusion.\n\nFrom what I observe in the mailing list, most patches are sent with\n\"To:\" set to mailing list (or re-sent with increasing version) , as per\nprevious paragraph in the guidelines [1].  Then, after the topic is\nreviewed and the [PATCH v<last>] series receives a thumbs up from a\nnumber of people, the maintainer--Junio C Hamano--replies with an email\ncontaining something along the lines of \"This change is in good\nshape.  Thanks, will queue.\", which makes me think that the re-send\nis not actually needed.\n\nIs this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this\ncorrectly?\n\n[1] \"Send your patch with \"To:\" set to the mailing list, with \"cc:\"\n    listing people who are involved in the area you are touching\"\n\n--\nBest regards, Andrei Rybak\n"},{"id":"340625","messageId":"xmqqd10okcfu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"47948","inReplyTo":"48b5c506-6882-81e2-35f6-7d040bfc6017@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-02-28T21:54:13Z","receivedAt":"2018-02-28T21:54:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this\n> correctly?\n\nI am merely being nice (but only on \"time-permitting\" basis).\n"},{"id":"340736","messageId":"927e3166-9c60-fca5-ab41-f6d38380c1b1@gmail.com","threadId":"47948","inReplyTo":"xmqqd10okcfu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?","fromName":"Andrei Rybak","fromEmail":"rybak.a.v@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-03-01T17:29:34Z","receivedAt":"2018-03-01T17:29:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rybak.a.v@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/624072?v=4"},"body":"On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:\n> \n>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this\n>> correctly?\n> \n> I am merely being nice (but only on \"time-permitting\" basis).\n> \n\nDoes that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is\na re-send?\n"},{"id":"340765","messageId":"xmqqtvtzeakc.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"47948","inReplyTo":"927e3166-9c60-fca5-ab41-f6d38380c1b1@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-03-01T21:43:31Z","receivedAt":"2018-03-01T21:43:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:\n>> \n>>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this\n>>> correctly?\n>> \n>> I am merely being nice (but only on \"time-permitting\" basis).\n>\n> Does that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is\n> a re-send?\n\nWhen I am not interested in a topic, or there are other reviewers\nwho are more qualified and are interested in the topic than I am,\nthe protocol to require the final \"Here is a verbatim final resend,\nthe only difference from what was reviewed is the reviewed-by's from\nthe reviewers.\" will let me completely ignore the topic while it is\nbeing discussed (as long as I trust the judgment of these reviewers).\n\nOtherwise I'd need to keep track of the progress of the discussion\non each and every topic, which is often impossible.\n"}]}