Hi,

This small series updates the 2 documentations: MyFirstContribution and SubmittingPatches.

The first patch clarifies that review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new version of the patches, which is talked in [1]. Contributors are encouraged to and should discuss their planned response in the existing review thread, so that the next version does not become the only place where reviewers can infer the author's reasoning.

The second patch is originally from an email from Patrick [2], which documents a rough expectation around reroll frequency.

Patrick suggests: There is no hard rule for when to send a new version, but batching feedback and avoiding multiple rerolls of the same series in a single day is a useful default. The text also mentions factors that may affect this, such as the size of the series, the depth of review, and whether the topic is close to being picked up.

Since I am the newbie here, please tell me how to attribute the credit to Patrick. Thank you Patrick!

I am sending this as RFC because I think my wording is quite rough, and there must be a better way to express all of these, including how to manage the structures of both these two documents. Any comments are appreciated, thank you!

[1]: <xmqq7bo5nf31.fsf@gitster.g> [2]: <aietF4BX1Ewt3cpG@pks.im>

Weijie Yuan (2):
  doc: encourage review replies before rerolling
  doc: advise batching patch rerolls

 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 17 +++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new patch version. Encourage contributors to discuss their planned response in the mailing-list thread before rerolling.

This makes the author's reasoning explicit before the next version is prepared, instead of forcing reviewers to infer it from the rerolled patches.

Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 12 +++++++-----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 12 +++++++++---
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Contributors often need guidance on how quickly to send later iterations of a patch series. Add a rough default of no more than one new version of the same series per day so feedback can be batched and reviewers have time to comment.

Mention factors that can affect the timing, such as series size, review depth, substantial rework, and how close the topic is to being accepted.

Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 15 +++++++++++++++
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        |  7 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org> writes:

Another good thing to discourage yourself from rerolling too quickly is that such a practice forces you to think twice and be very careful before sending patches out. As you have only one chance to get it right before, say, 24 hours, you'd want to make sure that you would not distract your reviewers with stupid typoes, off-by-one errors, and such, and concentrate their reviews more on what matters more, i.e., the higher level design, choice of algorithms, etc.

And the 24-hour gives equal chance to comment on your patches to anybody no matter where they live ;-)

I see you CC'ed Patrick, and I am sure he'll give us more useful suggestions than I do here ;-)

Thanks.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 09:02:39AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Thanks for your comments above! Let me think about how to integrate these contents with the patch.

This is his practical advice, and I just stole Patrick´s wording, to be fair ;-) so of course I should CC him and let him know I am a wording thief :-P, hope it wouldn't disturb him ;-)

Thank you very much.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 10:08:30PM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:

Not only that, but it also encourages more social interactions between contributors.

I feel like the new version doesn't really add anything significant to this paragraph that it didn't already say before your patch, but it does so with more words.

I'm of course biased though, so maybe more words help newcomers?

This change I agree with though, as it highlights what kind of discussions we expect to happen.

This change is probably good, as well.

Overall it's a bit on the annoying side that we have to always make sure to update both SubmittingPatches and MyFirstContribution in tandem. Makes me wonder whether they are mostly redundant and whether it would make sense to eventually merge them. But that's a tangent and not anything that needs to be addressed in this (or any other) patch series.

Patrick

On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 01:05:04AM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:

Indeed, so I don't really have anything else to add here.

By the way, talking about mailing list etiquette: in scenarios like this it makes sense to add a Helped-by trailer. That would've serviced as hint to Junio that I was already involved, and it gives credit to that other contributor. I myself don't care much about the latter part anymore, but newer contributors might.

And no, I don't mind at all that you "stole" my wording. Quite on the contrary, I'm happy you picked up my thoughts and cared enough to put them into a nice patch series :)

Thanks!

Patrick

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 03:17:14PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Thank you, yes, let me add "social interactions" in v2.

Yes, this diff only and merely emphasizes "use the normal response first, rather than re-rerolling directly." a litte bit, as I described in commit message. But indend, the existing sentence:

"This way reviewers don't need to inspect your v2 to -figure out whether you implemented their comment or not."

basically already has the same meaning.

So it does seem a bit wordy, but in other words, explicitly emphasizing what not to do and what to do instead is more straightforward and clear for new contributors.

Then the newly added sentence can correspond with the existing content at the end of this paragraph (of course, this doesn't really make much sense.)

To be honest, when I first started reading and writing, I had this feeling and confusion. Since I haven't gone through the history of these two documents yet, I just completed the preset task first.

Overall, I feel that the two documents have overlapping parts as well as their own distinct focuses, and like being intertwined with each other.

For new contributors, it seems more convenient to just look at one document, rather than trying to understand how the two files are cross-referenced with each other. (although I found some newcomers in GitHub PR pages don't even read one!) But this is obviously not an easy task for the writer.

Perhaps start a discussion in a separate thread? with all relevant personnel? But I understand that writing documentation is time-consuming and not easy.

Thank you very much.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 03:17:19PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Got it. I'll add that trailer. My original intention was to directly write a "Originally-from" instead of "Helped-by", because I didn't add anything new at all ;-)

I should be thanking you :-) I´d like to start by contributing through these more basic tasks and gradually become involved in the community, since my code patches would probably only create noise and meaningless trouble on the mailing list at this point ;-)

Thanks!

Hi,

This small series updates the 2 documentations: MyFirstContribution and SubmittingPatches.

The first patch clarifies that review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new version of the patches, which is talked in [1]. Contributors are encouraged to and should discuss their planned response in the existing review thread, so that the next version does not become the only place where reviewers can infer the author's reasoning.

The second patch is originally from an email from Patrick [2], which documents a rough expectation around reroll frequency.

Patrick suggests: There is no hard rule for when to send a new version, but batching feedback and avoiding multiple rerolls of the same series in a single day is a useful default. The text also mentions factors that may affect this, such as the size of the series, the depth of review, and whether the topic is close to being picked up.

Since I am the newbie here, please tell me how to attribute the credit to Patrick. Thank you Patrick!

Please feel free to make comments. Thank you.

[1]: <xmqq7bo5nf31.fsf@gitster.g> [2]: <aietF4BX1Ewt3cpG@pks.im>

---

Changes in v2:

For [PATCH 1/2] doc: encourage review replies before rerolling:

  - Add "social interactions" in commit message.

I didn't do any changes to this version for Patrick's comments in [a]:

Thinking about whether to delete/revert or not. Comments welcome.

For [PATCH 2/2] doc: advise batching patch rerolls:

  - Add a trailer to thank Patrick.

  Suggestions from Junio:

  - Mention that waiting between rerolls gives reviewers across time
    zones a fair chance to participate.
  - Mention that waiting also encourages authors to polish patches
    before sending them.

[a] <ai_7Wh7hrD8PZozg@pks.im>

--- base commit: 700432b2ba (topic flush before -rc1 (batch 1), 2026-06-15)

Weijie Yuan (2):
  doc: encourage review replies before rerolling
  doc: advise batching patch rerolls

 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 22 ++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Range-diff against v1:
1:  b9fa5fe471 ! 1:  4bb1efe71d doc: encourage review replies before rerolling
    @@ Commit message
     
         This makes the author's reasoning explicit before the next version is
         prepared, instead of forcing reviewers to infer it from the rerolled
    -    patches.
    +    patches. It also encourages more direct social interaction between
    +    contributors and helps foster a more collaborative review process.
     
         Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
     
2:  fafec6b31d ! 2:  496a08c74d doc: advise batching patch rerolls
    @@ Commit message
         Contributors often need guidance on how quickly to send later iterations
         of a patch series. Add a rough default of no more than one new version
         of the same series per day so feedback can be batched and reviewers have
    -    time to comment.
    +    time to comment regardless of their time zones.
     
         Mention factors that can affect the timing, such as series size, review
         depth, substantial rework, and how close the topic is to being accepted.
    +    Also point out that avoiding rapid rerolls encourages authors to polish
    +    each version before sending it, so reviewers can focus on substantial
    +    issues.
     
    +    Helped-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
         Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
     
      ## Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc ##
    @@ Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc: previous one" patches over 2 days), revi
      single polished version came 2 days later instead, and that version with
      fewer mistakes were the only one they would need to review.
      
    -+This consideration applies not only when going from the initial patch to v2, but
    -+also to later iterations of the same series. There is no fixed rule for how long
    -+to wait before sending a new version. A useful default is to send at most one
    -+new version of the same patch series per day. This gives multiple reviewers time
    -+to comment, lets you batch feedback together, and gives you time to think
    -+through the comments you received.
    ++This consideration applies not only when going from the initial patch to v2,
    ++but also to later iterations of the same series. There is no fixed rule for how
    ++long to wait before sending a new version. A useful default is to send at most
    ++one new version of the same patch series per day. This gives multiple reviewers
    ++time to comment, gives reviewers across time zones a fair chance to
    ++participate, lets you batch feedback together, and gives you time to think
    ++through the comments you received. Knowing that you should not immediately send
    ++another version also encourages you to review the patches more carefully before
    ++sending them, catch small mistakes such as typos and off-by-one errors
    ++yourself, and let reviewers spend more of their attention on design,
    ++algorithms, and other substantial issues.
     +
     +The right timing depends on the topic and the feedback. Larger series usually
     +need more review time. If the only comments so far are minor, such as typo
    @@ Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc: previous one" patches over 2 days), revi
      === Responding to Reviews
     
      ## Documentation/SubmittingPatches ##
    -@@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
    +@@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: area.
    + 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.
    +-input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
    ++input, gives reviewers in different time zones a fair chance to comment,
    ++and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.  Waiting also
    ++encourages you to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers can
    ++focus on substantial issues rather than typos or other small mistakes.
     ++
     +As a rough default, avoid sending more than one new version of the same
     +series per day, while considering the size of the series, the depth of

Review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new patch version. Encourage contributors to discuss their planned response in the mailing-list thread before rerolling.

This makes the author's reasoning explicit before the next version is prepared, instead of forcing reviewers to infer it from the rerolled patches. It also encourages more direct social interaction between contributors and helps foster a more collaborative review process.

Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 12 +++++++-----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 12 +++++++++---
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Contributors often need guidance on how quickly to send later iterations of a patch series. Add a rough default of no more than one new version of the same series per day so feedback can be batched and reviewers have time to comment regardless of their time zones.

Mention factors that can affect the timing, such as series size, review depth, substantial rework, and how close the topic is to being accepted. Also point out that avoiding rapid rerolls encourages authors to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers can focus on substantial issues.

Helped-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 12 ++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org> writes:

All sensible up to this point.

I am not sure about this one. Even though the intention to avoid wasting reviewers' time spent on reading through the previous version that will be invalidated is a good one, by definition, a substantial rework will naturally take time, and it is better not to rush and send an updated version with substantial changes that you yourself haven't had a chance to thoroughly review yet.

In such a case, it would be a better idea to respond to the review that made you realize a substantial rewrite is needed with a simple "I'll make a substantial rework based on this comment, which would invalidate this and that part of the current patch series, so please do not waste reviewer cycles on these parts until I send an updated series out" message.

I am not sure if this needs to be codified.

I often see (e.g., in patches from Patrick) that an iteration is marked clearly as final candidate that the author is not aware of any outstanding issues. This encourages reviewers to ask "what about this one raised there?" to remind what is missed, or chime in with "yup, this looks good" to show support. Such a note is highly recommended, but I do not see a need to say "the (supposedly) final one is specifically allowed to be sent without waiting" even then.

Thanks.

Sorry for the late reply. I spent some time looking back through the discussions on earlier patch series, to check my patch itself, of course because I'm apparently a newcomer here.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 10:50:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

I think the approach you recommended is obviously more reasonable.

It would be better to give everyone a heads-up "I am working on a new version."

I will improve this part accordingly.

Actually I thought Patrick would say something here ;-) so I waited a few more days to see whether anyone else had any suggestions.

But here I think Patrick's original intention is: If your series is *close* to be accepted, (while I'm not sure what the precise definition of this "close to be accepted", does it means: commented by Junio with "Looks good", or reviewed by the community/core contributors with "Makes sense"?) and this time there happens to be a small issue, you can re-roll quickly to make your series more "sturdy" to wait for maintainer's final examination and further merges.

So, I think the situation you are describing here is that this version of the patch has already been declared by the *author* to be the final version. (i.e. waiting for Junio to do the last exam)

Therefore, I do not think the two situations conflict with each other, or are directly related. One concerns a patch that is already close to receiving the maintainer's final verdict, where a minor issue is discovered and the author quickly rerolls it. The other concerns an author who, without realizing that some issues remain unresolved, rushes to send what they believe to be the final version and then waits for the maintainer to review it.

For the latter case, I think it would be better to add a sentence along the lines of: "Before sending a new version/the final version, check once more whether there are any unresolved issues," if the existing documentation does not already make this clear.

That said, I am not familiar with how patch discussions have played out in the past, so please directly point out any mistakes in my understanding. I have to admit that, by this point in writing the message, I have become a little tangled up in my own reasoning.

Thanks!

This small series updates the 2 documentations: MyFirstContribution and SubmittingPatches.

The first patch clarifies that review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new version of the patches, which is talked in [1]. Contributors are encouraged to and should discuss their planned response in the existing review thread, so that the next version does not become the only place where reviewers can infer the author's reasoning.

The second patch is originally from an email from Patrick [2], which documents a rough expectation around reroll frequency.

Patrick suggests: There is no hard rule for when to send a new version, but batching feedback and avoiding multiple rerolls of the same series in a single day is a useful default. The text also mentions factors that may affect this, such as the size of the series, the depth of review, and whether the topic is close to being picked up. (Edit: the last point is discussed by Junio[3], which is improved in v3)

Since I am the newbie here, please tell me how to attribute the credit to Patrick. Thank you Patrick! (Edit: finished with the Helped-by trailer in v2)

[1]: <xmqq7bo5nf31.fsf@gitster.g> [2]: <aietF4BX1Ewt3cpG@pks.im> [3]: <xmqq4ij1vywy.fsf@gitster.g>

--- Changes in v3:

  - Reworked the substantial-rework case.  Instead of suggesting that
    authors send a new version sooner, the text now advises authors not
    to rush out an updated version before reviewing the larger changes
    carefully.  It recommends replying to the review that prompted the
    rewrite, saying that a substantial rework is planned, and pointing
    out which parts of the current series will become obsolete.

  - Dropped the advice that a topic close to being accepted may justify
    a quicker reroll.

  - Removed "how close the topic is to being accepted" from the short
    reroll-timing guidance in Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

  - Updated the commit message of patch 2 accordingly.

Changes in v2:

For [PATCH 1/2] doc: encourage review replies before rerolling:

  - Add "social interactions" in commit message.

  I didn't do any changes for Patrick's comments in [a]:

  > I feel like the new version doesn't really add anything significant
  > to this paragraph that it didn't already say before your patch, but
  > it does so with more words.
  > I'm of course biased though, so maybe more words help newcomers?

  Thinking about whether to delete/revert or not. Comments welcome.

For [PATCH 2/2] doc: advise batching patch rerolls:

  - Add a trailer to thank Patrick.

  Suggestions from Junio:

  - Mention that waiting between rerolls gives reviewers across time
    zones a fair chance to participate.
  - Mention that waiting also encourages authors to polish patches
    before sending them.

[a] <ai_7Wh7hrD8PZozg@pks.im> --- base commit: 700432b2ba (topic flush before -rc1 (batch 1), 2026-06-15)

Weijie Yuan (2):
  doc: encourage review replies before rerolling
  doc: advise batching patch rerolls

 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 23 ++++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Range-diff against v2:
1:  4bb1efe71d = 1:  4bb1efe71d doc: encourage review replies before rerolling
2:  496a08c74d ! 2:  e1050a6ef5 doc: advise batching patch rerolls
    @@ Commit message
         time to comment regardless of their time zones.
     
         Mention factors that can affect the timing, such as series size, review
    -    depth, substantial rework, and how close the topic is to being accepted.
    -    Also point out that avoiding rapid rerolls encourages authors to polish
    -    each version before sending it, so reviewers can focus on substantial
    -    issues.
    +    depth, and substantial rework. Also point out that avoiding rapid
    +    rerolls encourages authors to polish each version before sending it, so
    +    reviewers can focus on substantial issues.
     
         Helped-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
         Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
    @@ Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc: previous one" patches over 2 days), revi
     +The right timing depends on the topic and the feedback. Larger series usually
     +need more review time. If the only comments so far are minor, such as typo
     +fixes, it often makes sense to wait a little longer in case deeper reviews are
    -+still coming. If the comments require substantial rework, sending a new version
    -+sooner may save reviewers from spending time on a version you already know will
    -+change significantly. If the topic is close to being accepted and the remaining
    -+comments are small, a quicker new version may also be fine.
    ++still coming. If the comments call for substantial rework, do not rush out an
    ++updated version before you have reviewed the larger changes carefully. Instead,
    ++reply to the review that prompted the rewrite, say that you are preparing a
    ++substantial rework, and mention which parts of the current series will become
    ++obsolete so reviewers can avoid spending time on them until the updated series
    ++is ready.
     +
      
      [[reviewing]]
    @@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: area.
     -input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
     +input, gives reviewers in different time zones a fair chance to comment,
     +and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.  Waiting also
    -+encourages you to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers can
    -+focus on substantial issues rather than typos or other small mistakes.
    ++encourages you to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers
    ++can focus on substantial issues rather than typos or other small
    ++mistakes. (only changes textwidth here)
     ++
     +As a rough default, avoid sending more than one new version of the same
    -+series per day, while considering the size of the series, the depth of
    -+review, and how close the topic is to being accepted.
    ++series per day, while considering the size of the series and the depth
    ++of review.
      
      . These early update iterations are expected to be full replacements,
        not incremental updates on top of what you posted already.  If you

Review feedback should not be answered only by sending a new patch version. Encourage contributors to discuss their planned response in the mailing-list thread before rerolling.

This makes the author's reasoning explicit before the next version is prepared, instead of forcing reviewers to infer it from the rerolled patches. It also encourages more direct social interaction between contributors and helps foster a more collaborative review process.

Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 12 +++++++-----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 12 +++++++++---
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Contributors often need guidance on how quickly to send later iterations of a patch series. Add a rough default of no more than one new version of the same series per day so feedback can be batched and reviewers have time to comment regardless of their time zones.

Mention factors that can affect the timing, such as series size, review depth, and substantial rework. Also point out that avoiding rapid rerolls encourages authors to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers can focus on substantial issues.

Helped-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan <wy@wyuan.org>
---
 Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches        | 13 +++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:20:15PM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:

Yeah, that works for me, as well.

My "close to be accepted" feeling is when you've had multiple rounds of design discussions already, everyone is on the same page, and all you got on the last review round is a couple of typo fixes.

But all of this is highly subjective, so it'll always depend and it won't be easy to codify all of that. Nor is that necessary, I guess. We really only want to provide some rough guidance.

I think that should mostly be clear with our documentation. And eventually, we should also expect people to have some common sense :)

I guess that's kind of expected, mostly because many of these things are highly subjective and will depend on the situation. The guidance does not have to be perfect, you'll probably be able to find counterexamples for many of the cases.

Patrick

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 04:05:34PM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:

Makes sense.

Patrick

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 04:04:36PM +0800, Weijie Yuan wrote:

I'm happy with this version, thanks!

Patrick

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 01:46:54PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Agreed, thanks!

Agreed.

Yes, setting the rules too strictly may actually reduce flexibility of our project.

Thanks!

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 01:47:05PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

Thank you very much for your review and guidance!