Re: [RFC PATCH v4] rebase: Update invocation of rebase dot-sourced scripts

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2018, 20:51 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfu4qikhp.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKk8isrxTmryumw5EFVcPxx9wUKA=pB3VxvH9VaHPLRraa=4=g@mail.gmail.com>

Wink Saville <wink@saville.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Here is one possibility:
>
> git format-patch --cover-letter --rfc --thread -v 5
> --to=git@vger.kernel.org --cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com
> --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de -o patches/v5 master..v5-2

Sounds sensible.

> If this was the first version then the above would seem to be a
> reasonable choice.

My personal preference (both as a reviewer and an occasional multi-patch series submitter) is to use a cover letter for a larger series (e.g. more than 3-5 patches), regardless of the iteration. In fact, a submitter tends to have _more_ things to say in the cover letter for v2 and subsequent iteration than the original iteration.

The motivation behind the series may not change so greatly but will be refined as iterations go on, and you want help those who missed the earlier iteration understand what you are doing with the updated cover letter. Also cover letter is the ideal place to outline where to find older iterations and their discussion and summarize what changed since these earlier attempts in this round.

> But this is version 5 and maybe I don't need --cover-letter which, I
> think means I
> don't want to use --thread. If that's the case should I add --in-reply-to? But
> that leads to the question. from which message should I get the Message-Id?

The most typical practice I've seen around here is that v5's cover is made in-reply-to v4's cover.