{"thread":{"id":"65951","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","startedAt":"2026-07-08T03:31:37Z","lastAt":"2026-07-08T16:33:55Z","messageCount":7,"participants":["Michael Montalbo","Junio C Hamano","Weijie Yuan"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"547433","messageId":"CAC2QwmJ8Z7hZHk9SofRsprvAR3B=UXUkeyy7i4uofRi-xEymow@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Michael Montalbo","fromEmail":"mmontalbo@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-07-08T03:31:24Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T03:31:37Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n> + A discussion on the list might convince you that your changes are\n> + not such a good idea, in which case you are expected to explicitly\n> + retract the topic, to releave the maintainer from having to worry\n> + about it.\n\ns/releave/relieve/\n\nAlso, I might reflow the end:\n...in which case you are expected to explicitly retract the topic and\nrelieve the maintainer from having to worry about it.\n\n> ...It is a friendly thing to do to tell the list in such a case...\n\nAgain a slight reflow suggestion (ofc my own subjective taste):\n\"...As a courtesy, tell the list in such a case so that...\"\n\nFinally, maybe a rule of thumb as to how old a topic a topic should get\nbefore a \"staleness\" update is provided would be helpful, or maybe that\nis too contextually dependent / would potentially introduce some\nunwanted scheduling contract?\n\nOverall, I think the explicit guidance is helpful. Of course, an author\nwhose topic is going stale may not be on top of updating its status,\nstale or otherwise, by definition. However, I think providing this advice\nup-front will encourage authors to be more proactive about taking action\n(notify of abandonment / handoff) before a topic gets too old.\n"},{"id":"547457","messageId":"xmqqechew0ap.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmJ8Z7hZHk9SofRsprvAR3B=UXUkeyy7i4uofRi-xEymow@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2026-07-08T04:52:14Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T04:52:17Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Michael Montalbo writes:\n\n> Junio C Hamano writes:\n>> + A discussion on the list might convince you that your changes are\n>> + not such a good idea, in which case you are expected to explicitly\n>> + retract the topic, to releave the maintainer from having to worry\n>> + about it.\n\n...\n\nThanks for improvements.\n\n> Finally, maybe a rule of thumb as to how old a topic a topic should get\n> before a \"staleness\" update is provided would be helpful, or maybe that\n> is too contextually dependent / would potentially introduce some\n> unwanted scheduling contract?\n>\n> Overall, I think the explicit guidance is helpful.\n\nI've been working on streamlining my workflow to manage the \"What's\ncooking\" report, and writing down guidelines with concrete numbers.\n\n * When the discussion seems to reach rough consensus that the\n latest round looks good for 'next', the topic is immediately\n marked as \"Will merge to 'next'?\" in my draft copy (note: I do\n not want to spam the list with \"What's cooking\" too often, but it\n is the document I work from, and it is updated multiple times a\n day).\n\n * After no negative opinions are seen on a topic in \"Will merge to\n 'next'?\" state for about 36 hours, the topic is marked as \"Will\n merge to 'next'\". I will merge such topics during the next\n integration cycle (note: I can only have up to two integration\n cycles per day due to time constraints).\n\n * Imagine that a topic was last updated more than 4 weeks ago. If\n there are review comments on the topic that are left unanswered\n by the author for more than a week, and if nothing happens in the\n discussion thread other than inquiry on the current status, the\n topic is marked as \"stalled\". I will try to notice and ping a\n stalled topic once or twice, but after that I may discard such a\n topic (which by the way I really hate having to decide to do so).\n\n * After a topic is merged to 'next', if nothing negative that needs\n fixing is discovered for 7 calendar days, the topic is merged to\n 'master'. I may shorten this depending on how complex the topic\n is.\n\nTHere may be more, but these are what I can think of offhand.\n\n"},{"id":"547458","messageId":"ak3fr3avEmt-UJf7@wyuan.org","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmJ8Z7hZHk9SofRsprvAR3B=UXUkeyy7i4uofRi-xEymow@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Weijie Yuan","fromEmail":"wy@wyuan.org","sentAt":"2026-07-08T05:27:11Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T05:27:29Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Hi Michael,\n\nBy the way, off-topic:\n\nI noticed that several times your replies didn't carry with a\n\"In-Reply-To\" header, which made me confused about the threads when\nsurfing on the web interface of lore.kernel.org. So also, I cannot pull\ndown the complete thread with b4. If possible, you may check your email\nclients, though all email clients suck ;-)\n\nThanks,\nWeijie\n"},{"id":"547459","messageId":"CAC2QwmK2kFBNRT47i4k-zBK+b0PFezLFbx0eO8t7DqT7tTnKhw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"ak3fr3avEmt-UJf7@wyuan.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Michael Montalbo","fromEmail":"mmontalbo@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-07-08T05:41:53Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T05:42:06Z","isPatch":true,"body":"On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 10:27 PM Weijie Yuan wrote:\n>\n> Hi Michael,\n>\n> By the way, off-topic:\n>\n> I noticed that several times your replies didn't carry with a\n> \"In-Reply-To\" header, which made me confused about the threads when\n> surfing on the web interface of lore.kernel.org. So also, I cannot pull\n> down the complete thread with b4. If possible, you may check your email\n> clients, though all email clients suck ;-)\n>\n\nArgh, sorry about that :(\n\nI think my workflow for replying to threads I am not already a part of is\nflawed. I usually control-click the reply mailto: link on the message in\nlore.kernel.org/git. That launches Gmail then I manually craft a message\nand send from there. I will spend some time investigating my workflow\nmore deeply.\n\nThank you for the helpful note!\n"},{"id":"547460","messageId":"ak3jl3vu_P8eBXa-@wyuan.org","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"xmqqechew0ap.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Weijie Yuan","fromEmail":"wy@wyuan.org","sentAt":"2026-07-08T05:43:51Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T05:44:14Z","isPatch":true,"body":"On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:52:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Michael Montalbo writes:\n> [...]\n> > Finally, maybe a rule of thumb as to how old a topic a topic should get\n> > before a \"staleness\" update is provided would be helpful, or maybe that\n> > is too contextually dependent / would potentially introduce some\n> > unwanted scheduling contract?\n> >\n> > Overall, I think the explicit guidance is helpful.\n> \n> I've been working on streamlining my workflow to manage the \"What's\n> cooking\" report, and writing down guidelines with concrete numbers.\n> \n> * When the discussion seems to reach rough consensus that the\n> latest round looks good for 'next', the topic is immediately\n> marked as \"Will merge to 'next'?\" in my draft copy (note: I do\n> not want to spam the list with \"What's cooking\" too often, but it\n> is the document I work from, and it is updated multiple times a\n> day).\n> \n> * After no negative opinions are seen on a topic in \"Will merge to\n> 'next'?\" state for about 36 hours, the topic is marked as \"Will\n> merge to 'next'\". I will merge such topics during the next\n> integration cycle (note: I can only have up to two integration\n> cycles per day due to time constraints).\n> \n> * Imagine that a topic was last updated more than 4 weeks ago. If\n> there are review comments on the topic that are left unanswered\n> by the author for more than a week, and if nothing happens in the\n> discussion thread other than inquiry on the current status, the\n> topic is marked as \"stalled\". I will try to notice and ping a\n> stalled topic once or twice, but after that I may discard such a\n> topic (which by the way I really hate having to decide to do so).\n> \n> * After a topic is merged to 'next', if nothing negative that needs\n> fixing is discovered for 7 calendar days, the topic is merged to\n> 'master'. I may shorten this depending on how complex the topic\n> is.\n> \n> There may be more, but these are what I can think of offhand.\n\nIntegrating the above parts into the document seems like a good idea.\n\nbtw, do we need to synchronize MyFirstContribution simultaneously?\n\nQuoting Patrick's words [1]:\n\nOverall it's a bit on the annoying side that we have to always make sure\nto update both SubmittingPatches and MyFirstContribution in tandem.\nMakes me wonder whether they are mostly redundant and whether it would\nmake sense to eventually merge them.\n\nThanks,\nWeijie\n\n[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/ai_7Wh7hrD8PZozg@pks.im/\n"},{"id":"547462","messageId":"ak3sgn8Eik-B6DWH@wyuan.org","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"CAC2QwmK2kFBNRT47i4k-zBK+b0PFezLFbx0eO8t7DqT7tTnKhw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Weijie Yuan","fromEmail":"wy@wyuan.org","sentAt":"2026-07-08T06:21:54Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T06:22:16Z","isPatch":true,"body":"On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:41:53PM -0700, Michael Montalbo wrote:\n> I think my workflow for replying to threads I am not already a part of is\n> flawed. I usually control-click the reply mailto: link on the message in\n> lore.kernel.org/git. That launches Gmail then I manually craft a message\n> and send from there. I will spend some time investigating my workflow\n> more deeply.\n\nI guess you are right. I suspect the Gmail web interface is the reason\nwhy the In-Reply-To header was lost here.\n\n> Thank you for the helpful note!\n\nYou´re welcome!\n"},{"id":"547509","messageId":"xmqqwlv5v3tb.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"65951","inReplyTo":"ak3jl3vu_P8eBXa-@wyuan.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: abandoning a series","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2026-07-08T16:33:52Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-08T16:33:55Z","isPatch":true,"body":"Weijie Yuan writes:\n\n> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:52:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> Michael Montalbo writes:\n>> [...]\n>> > Finally, maybe a rule of thumb as to how old a topic a topic should get\n>> > before a \"staleness\" update is provided would be helpful, or maybe that\n>> > is too contextually dependent / would potentially introduce some\n>> > unwanted scheduling contract?\n>> >\n>> > Overall, I think the explicit guidance is helpful.\n>> \n>> I've been working on streamlining my workflow to manage the \"What's\n>> cooking\" report, and writing down guidelines with concrete numbers.\n>> \n>> * When the discussion seems to reach rough consensus that the\n>> latest round looks good for 'next', the topic is immediately\n>> marked as \"Will merge to 'next'?\" in my draft copy (note: I do\n>> not want to spam the list with \"What's cooking\" too often, but it\n>> is the document I work from, and it is updated multiple times a\n>> day).\n>> \n>> * After no negative opinions are seen on a topic in \"Will merge to\n>> 'next'?\" state for about 36 hours, the topic is marked as \"Will\n>> merge to 'next'\". I will merge such topics during the next\n>> integration cycle (note: I can only have up to two integration\n>> cycles per day due to time constraints).\n>> \n>> * Imagine that a topic was last updated more than 4 weeks ago. If\n>> there are review comments on the topic that are left unanswered\n>> by the author for more than a week, and if nothing happens in the\n>> discussion thread other than inquiry on the current status, the\n>> topic is marked as \"stalled\". I will try to notice and ping a\n>> stalled topic once or twice, but after that I may discard such a\n>> topic (which by the way I really hate having to decide to do so).\n>> \n>> * After a topic is merged to 'next', if nothing negative that needs\n>> fixing is discovered for 7 calendar days, the topic is merged to\n>> 'master'. I may shorten this depending on how complex the topic\n>> is.\n>> \n>> There may be more, but these are what I can think of offhand.\n>\n> Integrating the above parts into the document seems like a good idea.\n\nIt could be, but not to the document we are discussing. The current\ndocument is about contributor's guide, telling them what to do and\nhow, and \"'next' usually holds a topic for 7 days\" is not as\ninteresting.\n\n> btw, do we need to synchronize MyFirstContribution simultaneously?\n>\n> Quoting Patrick's words [1]:\n>\n> Overall it's a bit on the annoying side that we have to always make sure\n> to update both SubmittingPatches and MyFirstContribution in tandem.\n> Makes me wonder whether they are mostly redundant and whether it would\n> make sense to eventually merge them.\n\nSurely, but that is outside the scope of this patch.\n\nThanks.\n"}]}