Re: [PATCH v3] MyFirstContribution: refrain from self-iterating too much
I was in the process of writing a review but my comments were getting a bit long. So to save you the trouble of applying the suggested changes, I have a scissors patch version at the bottom with the changes applied (you may simply want to read that first).
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> +After you sent out your first patch, you may find mistakes in it, or
s/you sent/sending
Also, add "perhaps realize" after "or".
Show 5 quoted lines
> +a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch. But
> +please resist the temptation to send a new version immediately.
> +
> + - If the mistakes you found are minor, send a reply to your patch as
> + if you were a reviewer and mention that you will fix them in an
Show 8 quoted lines
> + updated version.
> +
> + - On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so
> + drastically that reviews on the initial patch would become
> + useless, send a reply to your patch to say so immediately to
> + avoid wasting others' time (e.g. "I am working on a better
> + approach, so please ignore this patch, and wait for the updated
> + version.")
How about this wording?
- On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so
drastically that reviews on the initial patch would be a waste of
time (for everyone involved), retract the patch immediately with
a reply like "I am working on a much better approach, so please
ignore this patch and wait for the updated version."
> +Then give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before
> +sending an updated version (unless you retracted the initial patch,
> +that is).
I think this paragraph should be moved inside the first one above. So it could read something like this:
Please give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before
sending an updated version. That is, resist the temptation to send a new
version immediately (because it may be the case that others may have
already started reviewing your initial version). While waiting for review comments, you may find mistakes in your initial
patch, or perhaps realize a different and better way to achieve the goal
of the patch. In this case you may communicate your findings to other
reviewers as follows:> +Now, the above is a good practice if you sent your initial patch
> +prematurely without polish. But a better approach of course is to
> +avoid sending your patch prematurely in the first place.
> +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to
> +see your patch immediately after you wrote it.
How about just
Please be considerate of the time needed by reviewers to examine
each new version of your patch.?
> Instead of seeing
> +the initial version right now, that will be followed by several
> +updated "oops, I like this version better than the previous one"
> +versions over 2 days, reviewers would more appreciate if a single
s/versions over 2 days,/patches over 2 days),
s/more appreciate/strongly prefer
> +polished version came 2 days late and that version with fewer
> +mistakes were the only one they need to review.
Show 6 quoted lines
> +
> [[reviewing]]
> === Responding to Reviews
>
> --
> 2.41.0-376-gcba07a324d
Below is my scissor patch version.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Please give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before sending an updated version. That is, resist the temptation to send a new version immediately (because it may be the case that others may have already started reviewing your initial version).
While waiting for review comments, you may find mistakes in your initial patch, or perhaps realize a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch. In this case you may communicate your findings to other reviewers as follows:
- If the mistakes you found are minor, send a reply to your patch as if
you were the reviewer and mention that you will fix them in an
updated version.
- On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so
drastically that reviews on the initial patch would be a waste of
time (for everyone involved), retract the patch immediately with
a reply like "I am working on a much better approach, so please
ignore this patch and wait for the updated version."
Now, the above is a good practice if you sent your initial patch prematurely without polish. But a better approach of course is to avoid sending your patch prematurely in the first place.
Please be considerate of the time needed by reviewers to examine each
new version of your patch. Rather than seeing the initial version right
now (followed by several "oops, I like this version better than the
previous one" patches over 2 days), reviewers would strongly prefer if a
single polished version came instead, and that version with fewer
mistakes were the only one they would need to review.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Junio C Hamano
