Re: Our cumbersome mailing list workflow

> I don't think there's any reason that newcomers should need more
> iterations than regulars to finish a patch.  Regulars are actually
> held to a higher standard, so they are likely to need more iterations.
>
> A common mistake for newcomers, that I haven't learned yet how to warn
> properly against, is to keep re-sending minor iterations on a patch
> too quickly.  Some ways to avoid that:
>
>  * feel free to respond to review comments with something like "how
>    about this?" and a copy/pasted block of code that just addresses
>    that one comment.  That way, you can clear up ambiguity and avoid
>    the work of applying that change to the entire patch if it ends
>    up seeming like a bad idea.  This also avoids having to re-send a
>    larger patch or series multiple times to clear up a small ambiguity
>    from a review.

>  * be proactive.  Look for other examples of the same issue that a
>    reviewer pointed out once so they don't have to find it again
>    elsewhere in the next iteration....
>  * feel free to get more review out-of-band, too.  If you're still
>    playing with ideas and want someone to take a quick glance before
>    the patches are in reviewable form, you can do that and say so
>    (e.g., with 'RFC/' before 'PATCH' in the subject line).