A review exchange may begin with a reviewer asking "what did you mean by this phrase in your log message (or here in the doc)?", the author answering what was meant, and then the reviewer saying "ah, that is what you meant---then the flow of the logic makes sense". But that is not the happy end of the story. New contributors often forget that the material that has been reviewed in the above exchange is still unclear in the same way to the next person who reads it, until it gets updated. While we are in the vicinity, rephrase the verb "request" used to refer to comments by reviewers to "suggest"---this matches the contrast between "original" and "suggested" that appears later in the same paragraph, and more importantly makes it clearer that it is not like authors are to please reviewers' wishes but rather reviewers are merely helping authors to polish their commits. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> --- * Something along this line, in a more condensed form, may also want to be in SubmittingPatches, but let's start with a longer form that is easier to discuss the intent of the addition to see if it is a good idea. I've seen a patch that got reviewed falling thru the cracks without producing a v2 too many times. Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git c/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt w/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt index 60eed5edcd..bac4997e39 100644 --- c/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt +++ w/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt @@ -1143,11 +1143,24 @@ 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 requested, feel the original is better, or that the comment +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. +Reviewers may ask you about what you wrote in the patchset, either in +the proposed commit log message or in the changes themselves. You +should answer these questions in your response messages, but often the +reason why reviewers asked these questions to understand what you meant +to write is because your patchset needed clarification to be understood. +Do not be satisfied by just answering their questions in your response +and hear them say that they now understand what you wanted to say. +Update your patches to clarify the points reviewers had trouble with, +and prepare your v2; the words you used to explain your v1 to answer +reviewers' questions may be useful thing to use. Your goal is to make +your v2 clear enough so that it becomes unnecessary for you to give the +same explanation to the next person who reads it. + If you are going to push back on a comment, be polite and explain why you feel your original is better; be prepared that the reviewer may still disagree with you, and the rest of the community may weigh in on one side or the other. As
