Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 3, 2016, 16:53 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqbn19aj5t.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160803163449.iwjv4youmsf6okme@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:33:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > I disagree, however, with the suggestion to sift through your `pu` branch
>> > and to somehow replace local branches with the commits found there.
>> 
>> To be more in line with the "e-mailed patch" workflow, I think what I should
>> do is to send the version I queued with fixups back to the list as follow-up.
>> Just like reviewers review, the maintainer reviews and queues, the original
>> author should be able to work in the same workflow, i.e. reading and applying
>> an improved version of the patch from her mailbox.
>
> Leaving aside Dscho's questions of whether pulling patches from email is
> convenient for most submitters (it certainly is for me, but I recognize
> that it is not for many), I would much rather see incremental fixup
> patches from you than whole "here's what I queued" responses.

Ah, yes, I misspoke. It should be either an incremental diff or in-line comment to spell out what got changed as a response to the patch.

I find myself fixing the title the most often, which is part of the "log message" you pointed out that would not convey well with the "incremental diff" approach.