Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] refs: run copy and rename through transactions

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 8, 2026, 15:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqece02no9.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <asdsIjNEUOpaAnX5@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 11:44:15AM +0200, Maciej Ciemborowicz wrote:
>> Changes since v3:
>> 
>> * Rebase onto 6de20f6092 (The 4th batch, 2026-10-06), the master commit
>>   used in Junio's report.
>> * Preserve the packed preparation error in patch 2 as described above.
>> * Register t1425 and t1424 in t/meson.build in the commits adding them.
>
> Please engage with the reviewers. Just posting new versions without
> replying to them at all will very likely not get you anywhere. This kind
> of behaviour is nowadays a red flag and often hints at contributors who
> are basically just a meat proxy. And as a consequence, reviewers are
> very likely to disengage and stop reviewing your patch series
> altogether, which is frustrating to everyone involved.

Thanks for bringing this up.

A response to reviews on the N-th round must come long before sending the v(N+1) round of patches. Some contributors send them after v(N+1), or immediately before, but the proper time to respond is soon after receiving the reviews on vN and having had enough time to understand the comments, before starting work on v(N+1). Only after that work is complete would you send the new patches. Hence, we expect the time between vN and v(N+1) from real contributors to be measured in days, not hours. Whenever I see vN responses arrive after or immediately before the v(N+1) patches, or worse, no response at all but just the new patches, it smells fishy.