Re: [PATCH 1/4] git-prompt.sh: add submodule indicator

> Benjamin Fuchs <email@benjaminfuchs.de> writes:
>
>> In [2/4] I got rid of the loop by feedback of Gábor.
>> Sorry if my patch wasn't well formed.
>
> While it might be the way other development communities work, in the
> Git development community, we do not work that way when presenting
> your second and subsequent attempt to the community.
>
> Having the initial draft from the original developers that records
> the bugs and misdesigns in an earlier parts of a series and separate
> patches that record how the problems were fixed to arrive at the
> final shape of the codebase might be interesting to the original
> developers, and they may even find such a history valuable, but in
> the context of the history that will be recorded in the official
> tree of the project for eternity, that just adds useless noise.
>
> Instead of keeping the original, in which problems were pointed out,
> and adding later commits to correct them incrementally, a patch is
> "rerolled".  That is, you are expected to learn from the review
> comments and pretend as if you did the work from scratch and you
> already possessed the wisdom lent by the reviewers when you started
> your work.  In the "rerolled" patches you send, you pretend as if
> you worked without making mistakes you made in the earlier rounds at
> all, producing (more) perfect patches from the beginning.
>
> In reality, you may locally be using Git tools like rebase,
> cherry-pick and "add -p" while preparing these "rerolled" rounds of
> patches, but the name of the game is to hide that effort from the
> public and pretend to be a perfect human, recording the result of
> exercising your best ability in the official history ;-).
>
> So this is OK:
>
>     0/3: I want to improve X, and for that I identified that I need
>     A, B and C done.  A or B alone is already an improvement, but A
>     and B together makes it even more useful, and implementation of
>     C requires patches to do A and B.
>
>     1/3: do A
>     2/3: do B
>     3/3: do C, building on A and B
>
> This is not:
>
>     0/3: I want to improve X, and for that I need to do C.
>     1/3: I couldn't do C, and I did A instead.
>     2/3: A was totally useless. I fix it to do B.
>     3/3: B is not very useful, either. I fix it to do C.
>