Re: [PATCH 0/5] Suggested for PU: revision caching system to significantly speed up packing/walking

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 8, 2009, 03:11 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfxc3ov8t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <c77435a80908071553m6f7d5298p5ea68b9386198b3f@mail.gmail.com>

Nick Edelen <sirnot@gmail.com> writes:

> By the way, what would be the best way of posting a revised patchset?
> Should I just reply to my older posts, or make new ones?

That depends primarily on how heavily the patches needed to change in response to review comments, but until the series lands in 'next', you would typically send updated series as a replacement, not incremental.

Many people seemed to be interested in the series and had a volume of comments on it. I suspect the updated series would be quite different from the original, so for the next round I would suspect it would be best to start anew, marking them as [PATCH N/M (v2)], in a fresh thread. It would help reviewers if you said "this corresponds to [PATCH 3/5] in the original series, with the following improvements based on X and Y's comments" after the three-dash line.