threads / patch / 65141

patchDocumentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

## tl;dr

9 messages between Mar 5, 2026 and Mar 6, 2026. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 8people: 4as markdown or json

Justin Tobler· Mar 5, 2026, 19:38 UTC · lore

Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and could avoid duplicating work.

Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.

Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
Show changes to Documentation/SubmittingPatches +13 −0
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
 you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
 
+It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
+previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
+progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
+considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
+aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
+allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
+area.
+
 . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
   them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
   respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
   them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
++
+It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
+feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
+series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
+input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
 
 . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
   who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).

base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7

-- 
2.53.0.381.g628a66ccf6
Junio C Hamano· Mar 5, 2026, 20:35 UTC · re: Justin Tobler · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> could avoid duplicating work.
>
> Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
>
> Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

What's written in these two new paragraphs are all agreeable, but is the first addition in the right place with correct mark-up?

This whole section is a sequence of bullet points that shows "a typical life cycle of a patch series". The first bullet point starts with "You come up with an itch." and the second one is "You send the patches", whose end part is what we see in the pre-context of the patch, ending with "help you find out who they are."

If the new paragraph is meant as yet another paragraph to elaborate on that second bullet point, wouldn't we need that "a line with only a single '+' on it" before it, instead of a blank line, and the last line of the first new paragraph should not be such a "single '+'" line but a plain vanilla blank line?

Show 30 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
>  you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
>  help you find out who they are.
>  
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.
> +
>  . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
>    them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
>    respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
>    them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
> ++
> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
>  
>  . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
>    who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
>
> base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7
Justin Tobler· Mar 5, 2026, 21:27 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On 26/03/05 12:35PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> > to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> > in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> > could avoid duplicating work.
> >
> > Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> > reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> > broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
> >
> > Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> What's written in these two new paragraphs are all agreeable, but is
> the first addition in the right place with correct mark-up?
> 
> This whole section is a sequence of bullet points that shows "a
> typical life cycle of a patch series".  The first bullet point
> starts with "You come up with an itch." and the second one is "You
> send the patches", whose end part is what we see in the pre-context
> of the patch, ending with "help you find out who they are."
> 
> If the new paragraph is meant as yet another paragraph to elaborate
> on that second bullet point, wouldn't we need that "a line with only
> a single '+' on it" before it, instead of a blank line, and the last
> line of the first new paragraph should not be such a "single '+'"
> line but a plain vanilla blank line?

Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with '+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.

Thanks, -Justin

Junio C Hamano· Mar 5, 2026, 21:35 UTC · re: Justin Tobler · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with
> '+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a
> blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.

I have the following queued on top. If there is nothing else, I can just squash it in.

Subject: [PATCH] SQUASH??? mark-up fix
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Show changes to Documentation/SubmittingPatches +1 −1
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 5acd692ad7..359f5fb74e 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
 they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
 you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
-
++
 It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
 previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
 progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design

-- 
2.53.0-621-g5d45fffb26
Justin Tobler· Mar 5, 2026, 21:43 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On 26/03/05 01:35PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Ah yes apologies. The first addition to start with a line prefixed with
> > '+' intead of a blank line. I do believe it does already end with a
> > blank line though. I'll correct in the next version.
> 
> I have the following queued on top.  If there is nothing else, I
> can just squash it in.
Perfect. Thanks for fixing. :)
-Justin
Kristoffer Haugsbakk· Mar 5, 2026, 22:27 UTC · re: Justin Tobler · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea
> to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already
> in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and
> could avoid duplicating work.
>
> Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to
> reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect
> broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls.
>
> Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask
> them for help,
>  you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+
> would
>  help you find out who they are.
>
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list,

This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote (git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.

Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which prominently features the address at the start.

Show 7 quoted lines
> or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.
> +

This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a history.

Show 9 quoted lines
>  . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
>    them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
>    respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
>    them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
> ++
> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
This addition makes sense including its placement.
Show 7 quoted lines
>
>  . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
>    who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
>
> base-commit: 628a66ccf68d141d57d06e100c3514a54b31d6b7
> --
> 2.53.0.381.g628a66ccf6
Justin Tobler· Mar 6, 2026, 01:48 UTC · re: Kristoffer Haugsbakk · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On 26/03/05 11:27PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
> > +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> > +previously on the mailing list,
> 
> This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote
> (git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.
> 
> Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which
> prominently features the address at the start.

We also mention "the list" several times in the surround bullet points prior to the footnote too. If we think it matters I can move the footnote up.

Show 13 quoted lines
> > or whether similar work is already in
> > +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> > +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> > +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> > +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> > +area.
> > +
> 
> This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the
> effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to
> try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that
> they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a
> history.

Ya, I agree that most folks who feel inclined to read this document proactively would likely also lookup previous/on-going mailing list discussions. I do think this would be useful though to include so we can point contributors this direction when needed.

Thanks, -Justin

Kristoffer Haugsbakk· Mar 6, 2026, 10:56 UTC · re: Justin Tobler · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On Fri, Mar 6, 2026, at 02:48, Justin Tobler wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On 26/03/05 11:27PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, at 20:38, Justin Tobler wrote:
>> > +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
>> > +previously on the mailing list,
>>
>> This is at the start of the document. “The mailing list” footnote
>> (git-ml) does not get mentioned until line 535.
>>
>> Although there is the initial mention of `MyFirstContribution` which
>> prominently features the address at the start.
>
> We also mention "the list" several times in the surround bullet points
> prior to the footnote too. If we think it matters I can move the
> footnote up.
Yeah that can be solved separately also. :)
Show 18 quoted lines
>> > or whether similar work is already in
>> > +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
>> > +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
>> > +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
>> > +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
>> > +area.
>> > +
>>
>> This seems useful to cite. It seems less useful for people who go to the
>> effort of reading this file themselves. They presumably care enough to
>> try to get the procedural steps correct. It’s difficult to imagine that
>> they either think that their idea has to be unique or that there isn’t a
>> history.
>
> Ya, I agree that most folks who feel inclined to read this document
> proactively would likely also lookup previous/on-going mailing list
> discussions. I do think this would be useful though to include so we can
> point contributors this direction when needed.
That sounds good to me.
brian m. carlson· Mar 6, 2026, 12:58 UTC · re: Justin Tobler · lore

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches

On 2026-03-05 at 19:38:36, Justin Tobler wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed
> +previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in
> +progress.  Prior discussions may contain useful context, design
> +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being
> +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may
> +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same
> +area.

This seems reasonable. We've had cases of patch series that have stalled due to a minor issue and someone wanting to send a patch may find that they really could fix that minor issue on top of the existing patch and have their problem solved. Or at least, they might be inclined to not get stuck in the same way.

I try to do this anyway, but it's much easier on forge-style systems than it is on a mailing list, so mentioning it may help refresh people's memories.

You could, if you wanted to, link to `{gitml}` after the phrase “the mailing list,” which might help folks find the right location. Or you could link to the https://lore.kernel.org/git/ archives instead via a footnote.

> +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
> +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
> +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
> +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
I think this is a good idea, too.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA

← back to recent threads