# Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?

4 messages from 2018-02-28 to 2018-03-01. Participants: Andrei Rybak, Junio C Hamano.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/47948

## Andrei Rybak, 2018-02-28 21:31

Subject: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?
Message-ID: <48b5c506-6882-81e2-35f6-7d040bfc6017@gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/48b5c506-6882-81e2-35f6-7d040bfc6017%40gmail.com

```
Hello,

It seems to me that this part of Documentation/SubmittingPatches is
not actual nowadays:

  After the list reached a consensus that it is a good idea to apply the
  patch, re-send it with "To:" set to the maintainer{1} and "cc:" the
  list{2} for inclusion.

From what I observe in the mailing list, most patches are sent with
"To:" set to mailing list (or re-sent with increasing version) , as per
previous paragraph in the guidelines [1].  Then, after the topic is
reviewed and the [PATCH v<last>] series receives a thumbs up from a
number of people, the maintainer--Junio C Hamano--replies with an email
containing something along the lines of "This change is in good
shape.  Thanks, will queue.", which makes me think that the re-send
is not actually needed.

Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
correctly?

[1] "Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:"
    listing people who are involved in the area you are touching"

--
Best regards, Andrei Rybak

```

## Junio C Hamano, 2018-02-28 21:54

Subject: Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?
Message-ID: <xmqqd10okcfu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqd10okcfu.fsf%40gitster-ct.c.googlers.com
In-Reply-To: <48b5c506-6882-81e2-35f6-7d040bfc6017@gmail.com>

```
Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:

> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
> correctly?

I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).

```

## Andrei Rybak, 2018-03-01 17:29

Subject: Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?
Message-ID: <927e3166-9c60-fca5-ab41-f6d38380c1b1@gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/927e3166-9c60-fca5-ab41-f6d38380c1b1%40gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd10okcfu.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

```
On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
>> correctly?
> 
> I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).
> 

Does that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is
a re-send?

```

## Junio C Hamano, 2018-03-01 21:43

Subject: Re: Obsolete instruction in SubmittingPatches?
Message-ID: <xmqqtvtzeakc.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqtvtzeakc.fsf%40gitster-ct.c.googlers.com
In-Reply-To: <927e3166-9c60-fca5-ab41-f6d38380c1b1@gmail.com>

```
Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:

> On 01.03.2018 0:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Is this part of guidelines obsolete, or am I not understanding this
>>> correctly?
>> 
>> I am merely being nice (but only on "time-permitting" basis).
>
> Does that mean that the integration of a series is easier, when there is
> a re-send?

When I am not interested in a topic, or there are other reviewers
who are more qualified and are interested in the topic than I am,
the protocol to require the final "Here is a verbatim final resend,
the only difference from what was reviewed is the reviewed-by's from
the reviewers." will let me completely ignore the topic while it is
being discussed (as long as I trust the judgment of these reviewers).

Otherwise I'd need to keep track of the progress of the discussion
on each and every topic, which is often impossible.

```