diff options
| author | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | 2024-04-19 11:45:59 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | 2024-04-19 11:45:59 -0700 |
| commit | 345042418503386e14c9f2b3f235bb25b1a32aed (patch) | |
| tree | 02d1d2792919381b67e5d52c2de2fb46ffed1911 | |
| parent | 8992799f58d6219a855f501ea5a4ded9cd964b6e (diff) | |
| download | git-345042418503386e14c9f2b3f235bb25b1a32aed.tar.gz | |
Meta/Canned: polish 'not just respond' section
| -rw-r--r-- | CannedResponses | 14 |
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/CannedResponses b/CannedResponses index 74044e483b..aa33ba60a1 100644 --- a/CannedResponses +++ b/CannedResponses @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ the stage and stating the objective first, before going into how the patch solved it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -[polish your history] +[polish your history before sending] We frown upon a patch series that makes mistakes in an earlier step, only to fix them in a later step. The "git rebase -i" command helps @@ -44,6 +44,18 @@ e-mail response. It is pointing out that the end product, either the patch text or the proposed log message, is not clear to target audience and needs update. +We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either +rebut or admit the issues raised. It may be that a reviewer's point +were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly +fine. + +But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing +the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch +text or the proposed log message being unclear. Of course, the +review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue. +They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches +posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move +ahead. ---------------------------------------------------------------- [make us come to you, begging] |