Re: [PATCH v3] doc: writing down Git mailing list etiquette

From: Dave Huseby <dwh@linuxprogrammer.org>
Date: May 13, 2021, 17:17 UTC
Message-ID: <20210513171706.GD11882@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy2cjcwn4.fsf@gitster.g>

On 13.05.2021 09:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

>I've read this version over, and did not find much that is
>objectionable, but as some others said on the previous round, there
>may be overlaps and repetitions we'd rather get rid of.  We should
>be able to cover discussions around patches in the SubmittingPatches
>document without introducing a new document, so all that remains is
>what to do with non-patch discussions.  I suspect that it might even
>be sufficient to (1) taylor descriptions introduced in this patch
>for discussions around patches and reviews, and add it as a new
>section to SubmittingPatches and (2) mention that the same principle
>applies to non-patch communication in the same section as a sidenote
>but obviously others may disagree.

I realized last night that there is an important distinction between using email to work *with* Git and using email to work *on* Git. The Git ML has its own etiquette and rules and MUA tweaks that may not apply to other projects that use Git and a mailing list. The files MyFirstContribution.txt and SubmittingPatches are clearly focused on using email to work *on* Git. The file MyFirstObjectWalk.txt is also about working *on* Git, although unrelated to email and the mailing list. Maybe it's time we make the *on*/*with* distinction more obvious by creating a Documentation/WorkingOnGit subdir? Just throwing that out there.

It sounds to me like adding a MailingListEtiquette.txt file isn't the favored approach. I can tailor the information in here to fit into new sections of SubmittingPatches.

Show 8 quoted lines

>Ævar, you also have some updates to SubmittingPatches in flight.
>
>Can I ask you to work with Dave to figure out how well this update
>fits in the entire picture as a stakeholder to the document (i.e.
>not as "the guilty party who is involved in conflicts", but as
>"somebody who has been long enough to be qualified to guide the
>evolution of the document, and obviously is interested in improving
>the document")?

I saw Ævar's patches last night and had the same thought. Since it looks like this is probably all going into SubmittingPatches, I'll connect with Ævar and see if we can come up with a patch series for (1) Ævar's re-org and pruning (2) my Mutt MUA settings and (3) etiquette related information for discussions around patches and reviews with a (4) side note for any general etiquette for non-patch communication.

Thoughts?

>Thanks.

No, thank you. And thank you to Felipe and Bagas for such thorough reviews.