From 7bcc64be776baf9b8b22e8352b7c1e0d5da66cfe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Weijie Yuan Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 16:05:06 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: encourage review replies before rerolling 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 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 12 +++++++----- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 12 +++++++++--- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc index b9fdefce02..00704ab91e 100644 --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc @@ -1337,11 +1337,13 @@ fewer mistakes were the only one they would need to review. After a few days, you will hopefully receive a reply to your patchset with some comments. Woohoo! Now you can get back to work. -It's good manners to reply to each comment, notifying the reviewer that you have -made the change suggested, feel the original is better, or that the comment -inspired you to do something a new way which is superior to both the original -and the suggested change. This way reviewers don't need to inspect your v2 to -figure out whether you implemented their comment or not. +It's good manners to reply to each comment in the mailing list discussion +instead of letting the next version of your patch be your only response. Tell +the reviewer whether you plan to make the suggested change, keep the original, +or pursue a different approach. This way reviewers can respond to your reasoning +before you spend time preparing a version they may not agree with, and later do +not need to inspect your v2 to figure out whether you implemented their comment +or not. Reviewers may ask you about what you wrote in the patchset, either in the proposed commit log message or in the changes themselves. You diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index f042bb5aaf..6c1e1f6423 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -48,8 +48,12 @@ 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. + respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, instead of + letting an updated patch series be your only response. Tell + reviewers which suggestions you plan to use, which ones you disagree + with, and when a comment leads you to consider a different approach. + Use these replies and any follow-up discussion as input when + 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 @@ -613,7 +617,9 @@ grouped into their own e-mail thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message (see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. Here is a link:MyFirstContribution.html#v2-git-send-email[step-by-step guide] on -how to submit updated versions of a patch series. +how to submit updated versions of a patch series. Before sending another +version, make sure you have answered meaningful review comments in the existing +discussion. If your log message (including your name on the `Signed-off-by` trailer) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that From 477172636160c9729a2c4ae4aca4b3bcf0d4d83a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Weijie Yuan Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 16:05:34 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] doc: advise batching patch rerolls 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 Signed-off-by: Weijie Yuan Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc index 00704ab91e..35105bc3b4 100644 --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc @@ -1330,6 +1330,28 @@ previous one" patches over 2 days), reviewers would strongly prefer if a 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, 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 +fixes, it often makes sense to wait a little longer in case deeper reviews are +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]] === Responding to Reviews diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 6c1e1f6423..d89efe0707 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -58,7 +58,15 @@ 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, 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 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 @@ -619,7 +627,8 @@ letter" message (see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. Here is a link:MyFirstContribution.html#v2-git-send-email[step-by-step guide] on how to submit updated versions of a patch series. Before sending another version, make sure you have answered meaningful review comments in the existing -discussion. +discussion. Also give reviewers enough time to comment before sending another +version. If your log message (including your name on the `Signed-off-by` trailer) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that