From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 15:54:14 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] refs: run copy and rename through transactions Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Patrick Steinhardt writes: > 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.