{"thread":{"id":"65830","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: address design critiques","startedAt":"2026-06-18T03:53:20Z","lastAt":"2026-06-18T15:40:22Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Michael Montalbo","Kristoffer Haugsbakk","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"545809","messageId":"CAC2QwmJdF+YzAQE3WDEaUrurLVkYcAA0Cgs1YAqyxYcQ0jKfqA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"65830","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: address design critiques","fromName":"Michael Montalbo","fromEmail":"mmontalbo@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-06-18T03:53:07Z","receivedAt":"2026-06-18T03:53:20Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Contributors sometimes fail to answer fundamental design or\n> viability comments from reviewers and submit subsequent rounds\n> without addressing them.\n\nI think these added sections are helpful. As a newer contributor\nbrowsing topics, I was somewhat surprised (pleasantly) how it seems\nlike nearly every patch receives some kind of consideration even\nif the initial direction of a patch isn't necessarily something the\nproject ultimately wants to adopt. I also sometimes see these kind\nof patches receive implementation-specific feedback in addition\nto design feedback, which I think can obscure the fact (especially\nfor newcomers) that even though one continues to send re-rolls\naddressing implementation critique, the series won't make\nfundamental progress (or receive continued attention) if design\nissues aren't fixed first.\n\n> +You would want to be particularly mindful of critiques regarding the\n> +high-level design or viability of your proposal (e.g., questioning\n> +whether the feature is worth implementing, or if the chosen approach\n> +is appropriate).  You want to defend your design decisions on the list\n> +first, because you do not want to spend too much effort in the\n> +implementation if the design is not yet solid.\n\nTwo small suggestions: open with a direct imperative and replace\n\"effort in the implementation\" with \"effort on the implementation\".\n\n    [B]e particularly mindful of...\n    ... too much effort [on] the implementation...\n\n> +Also, make sure that any new version is accompanied by a much clearer\n> +explanation and justification (in the cover letter, your responses,\n> +and in the revised commit messages).  Aim to make the reviewers say\n> +\"it is now clear why we may want to do this with the updated version\".\n\nMaybe it would help to spell out what the explanation/justification is\nfor more explicitly (though it may be a bit redundant with the\n\"meaningful message\" blurb):\n\n    Make sure that any new version explains and justifies those\n    design decisions more clearly: why the change is worth making,\n    what alternatives were considered, and why the chosen approach\n    is correct.  Put that justification in the cover letter, your\n    responses, and the revised commit messages.  Aim to make the\n    reviewers say \"it is now clear why we may want to do this with\n    the updated version\".\n"},{"id":"545811","messageId":"CAC2QwmKXqaM5_AeEpNt04YRJa9K6G0vkFtfXvnq_QRShpmSoPQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"65830","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmJdF+YzAQE3WDEaUrurLVkYcAA0Cgs1YAqyxYcQ0jKfqA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: address design critiques","fromName":"Michael Montalbo","fromEmail":"mmontalbo@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-06-18T04:38:45Z","receivedAt":"2026-06-18T04:38:59Z","isPatch":true,"body":"On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 8:53 PM Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com> wrote:\n>\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > +You would want to be particularly mindful of critiques regarding the\n> > +high-level design or viability of your proposal (e.g., questioning\n> > +whether the feature is worth implementing, or if the chosen approach\n> > +is appropriate).  You want to defend your design decisions on the list\n> > +first, because you do not want to spend too much effort in the\n> > +implementation if the design is not yet solid.\n>\n> Two small suggestions: open with a direct imperative and replace\n> \"effort in the implementation\" with \"effort on the implementation\".\n>\n>     [B]e particularly mindful of...\n>     ... too much effort [on] the implementation...\n\nAlso, maybe we can even more directly say:\n\nDo not spend too much effort on the implementation if the design is not\nyet solid. Be able to defend your design decisions on the list first.\n"},{"id":"545830","messageId":"af7dea68-59c4-42c2-afd5-708a3068858e@app.fastmail.com","threadId":"65830","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmJdF+YzAQE3WDEaUrurLVkYcAA0Cgs1YAqyxYcQ0jKfqA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: address design critiques","fromName":"Kristoffer Haugsbakk","fromEmail":"kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com","sentAt":"2026-06-18T08:55:24Z","receivedAt":"2026-06-18T08:57:44Z","isPatch":true,"body":"On Thu, Jun 18, 2026, at 05:53, Michael Montalbo wrote:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>[snip]\n>\n> Two small suggestions: open with a direct imperative and replace\n> \"effort in the implementation\" with \"effort on the implementation\".\n>[snip]\n\nThe threading doesn’t work here. This is in reply to:\n\nhttps://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqv7bhxiby.fsf@gitster.g/\n\nBut your email has no `In-Reply-To` header.\n"},{"id":"545860","messageId":"xmqqqzm3svq4.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"65830","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmJdF+YzAQE3WDEaUrurLVkYcAA0Cgs1YAqyxYcQ0jKfqA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: address design critiques","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2026-06-18T15:40:19Z","receivedAt":"2026-06-18T15:40:22Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com> writes:\n\n> Two small suggestions: open with a direct imperative and replace\n> \"effort in the implementation\" with \"effort on the implementation\".\n>\n>     [B]e particularly mindful of...\n>     ... too much effort [on] the implementation...\n\nYeah, I started from something like that then toned it down, but I\nagree that it is more appropriate to be more assertive here.\n\n> Maybe it would help to spell out what the explanation/justification is\n> for more explicitly (though it may be a bit redundant with the\n> \"meaningful message\" blurb):\n\nYeah, and it depends on what kind of higher level issues the\nreviewer comment is about, so ...\n\n>     Make sure that any new version explains and justifies those\n>     design decisions more clearly: why the change is worth making,\n>     what alternatives were considered, and why the chosen approach\n>     is correct.  Put that justification in the cover letter, your\n>     responses, and the revised commit messages.  Aim to make the\n>     reviewers say \"it is now clear why we may want to do this with\n>     the updated version\".\n\n... I find the beginning part of the above very much better than\nwhat I had in my version, but part of the first sentence after the\ncolon is probably a bit too much.\n\nI'll send out v3 sometime before the next week.\n\nThanks.\n\n"}]}