Re: [PATCH v3] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 28, 2023, 00:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7cqkanm9.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <owlycz0deykz.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com>

Linus Arver <linusa@google.com> writes:

> I was in the process of writing a review but my comments were getting a
> bit long. So to save you the trouble of applying the suggested changes,
> I have a scissors patch version at the bottom with the changes applied
> (you may simply want to read that first).

Thanks. I very much like your version over the one you are responding to, except for one minor point.

Show 9 quoted lines

>> +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to
>> +see your patch immediately after you wrote it.
>
> How about just
>
>      Please be considerate of the time needed by reviewers to examine
>      each new version of your patch.
>
> ?

Both give a useful piece of advice, but they are slightly different.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Please be considerate of the time needed by reviewers to examine each
> new version of your patch. Rather than seeing the initial version right
> now (followed by several "oops, I like this version better than the
> previous one" patches over 2 days), reviewers would strongly prefer if a
> single polished version came instead, and that version with fewer
> mistakes were the only one they would need to review.

What I wanted to convey with "we do not need your initial patch
immediately" was that it is perfectly fine if the cost of producing
the version "reviewers would strongly prefer" is that it takes 2
more days before they see such a more polished version.  IOW, adding
something like
 
   , even if it took 2 more days before they see the version.

at the end of the above paragraph was what I wanted to say with "hey, this is not a race. don't focus on sending immediately after you wrote it. nobody is dying to see your patch immediately off the press".

Thanks.