{"thread":{"id":"48269","subject":"[PATCH resend] SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command","startedAt":"2018-04-11T20:20:03Z","lastAt":"2018-04-11T20:42:44Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Thomas Gummerer","Derrick Stolee","Eric Sunshine"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"344483","messageId":"20180411202000.31086-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com","threadId":"48269","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH resend] SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command","fromName":"Thomas Gummerer","fromEmail":"t.gummerer@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-11T20:20:00Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-11T20:20:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"t.gummerer@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/191004?v=4"},"body":"Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it\nquite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of\npeople to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility,\nwhich makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a\nchange.\n\nThis should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by\nsimply using a single command.\n\nSigned-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>\n---\n\nI've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an\nthe rc period.  Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being\nokay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)).  As I still\nthink this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending\nit here.\n\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 ++--\n 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nindex a1d0feca36..945f8edb46 100644\n--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n@@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`.  That is\n not a text/plain, it's something else.\n \n Send your patch with \"To:\" set to the mailing list, with \"cc:\" listing\n-people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from\n-`git blame $path` and `git shortlog --no-merges $path` would help to\n+people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git\n+contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to\n identify them), to solicit comments and reviews.\n \n :1: footnote:[The current maintainer: gitster@pobox.com]\n-- \n2.16.2.804.g6dcf76e11\n\n"},{"id":"344485","messageId":"4f19d1b0-72e1-4c9f-6027-16e0e6cfc24d@gmail.com","threadId":"48269","inReplyTo":"20180411202000.31086-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH resend] SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-04-11T20:38:54Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-11T20:39:08Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 4/11/2018 4:20 PM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:\n> Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it\n> quite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of\n> people to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility,\n> which makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a\n> change.\n>\n> This should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by\n> simply using a single command.\n>\n> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>\n> ---\n>\n> I've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an\n> the rc period.  Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being\n> okay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)).  As I still\n> think this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending\n> it here.\n\nI didn't know about this tool, and it seems helpful. I plan to use it \nnow. Thanks!\n\n>   Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 ++--\n>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)\n>\n> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> index a1d0feca36..945f8edb46 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> @@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`.  That is\n>   not a text/plain, it's something else.\n>   \n>   Send your patch with \"To:\" set to the mailing list, with \"cc:\" listing\n> -people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from\n> -`git blame $path` and `git shortlog --no-merges $path` would help to\n> +people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git\n> +contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to\n>   identify them), to solicit comments and reviews.\n>   \n>   :1: footnote:[The current maintainer: gitster@pobox.com]\n\n"},{"id":"344491","messageId":"CAPig+cTQxHPufoB2rCnmLQoLDkCHNeOO477+qwBJ5qseVro4vg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"48269","inReplyTo":"20180411202000.31086-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH resend] SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command","fromName":"Eric Sunshine","fromEmail":"sunshine@sunshineco.com","sentAt":"2018-04-11T20:42:35Z","receivedAt":"2018-04-11T20:42:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"sunshine@sunshineco.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/163641?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it\n> quite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of\n> people to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility,\n> which makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a\n> change.\n>\n> This should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by\n> simply using a single command.\n>\n> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>\n> ---\n>\n> I've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an\n> the rc period.  Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being\n> okay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)).  As I still\n> think this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending\n> it here.\n\nI don't think you misinterpreted my response. Your answers to my\nreview questions seemed satisfactory, so I wasn't expecting any\nchanges.\n"}]}