@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ the stage and stating the objective first, before going into how the
23
23
patch solved it.
24
24
25
25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
- [polish your history]
26
+ [polish your history before sending ]
27
27
28
28
We frown upon a patch series that makes mistakes in an earlier step,
29
29
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
44
44
patch text or the proposed log message, is not clear to target
45
45
audience and needs update.
46
46
47
+ We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either
48
+ rebut or admit the issues raised. It may be that a reviewer's point
49
+ were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly
50
+ fine.
51
+
52
+ But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing
53
+ the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch
54
+ text or the proposed log message being unclear. Of course, the
55
+ review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue.
56
+ They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
57
+ posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
58
+ ahead.
47
59
----------------------------------------------------------------
48
60
[make us come to you, begging]
49
61
0 commit comments