From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:22:55 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] check-ref-format --print: Normalize refnames that start with slashes
Message-ID: <7vwrdv503k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110829185011.GC756@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> ... I always assumed that you did one of:
>
>   1. Comment on the patch via email, just as any other reviewer, so it
>      can go into the re-roll.
>
>   2. Fix-up the patch or commit message during "am", with the assumption
>      that it is ready to be merged at least to "next", at which point
>      re-rolls are no longer OK, anyway.

Not really.

I usually amend patches queued to 'pu' (or queue fixup! separately) when I
am reasonably confident that my suggestion had enough merits.  Also I roll
in suggestions that are obviously (to me) good from the list, which may or
may not be the same to the list concensus. Maybe I should try to be less
aggressive.

> I mentioned "it takes effort" above. I don't mean "submitters shouldn't
> be expected to put in extra effort". But we should make sure the effort
> is well-spent, which means:
>
>   1. Giving them some indication that you tweaked things during
>      application. It doesn't have to be an inclusive list. Even saying
>      "Thanks, applied with some spelling fixes" instead of your usual
>      "Thanks" is enough (actually, I think you frequently do so
>      already).

Just started consciously doing so yesterday, after starthing this offtopic
therad ;-)