Will Chandler <wfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Thank you, Junio. Would it be helpful if I sent a separate '[PATCH v2]'
> email?
>
> Apologies for not following the correct procedure for the revised patch.
> I was relying on 'SubmittingPatches', but I've since found the detailed
> instructions on submitting revisions in 'MyFirstContribution.txt'.
I am not sure if there is anything to apologize for on your part.
The procedures we use have grown over time, and there certainly
would be documentation gaps.
I think the best current practice is
1. In a thread that originates at a non-patch message, or in a
review discussion thread for a patch, it is welcome to use "How
about doing it this way?" patches as an illustration to explain
your idea in a more concrete way than just in prose. But it is
unwelcome to leave the patch buried in the discussion, without
making it easier to find it (see 3.)
2. In such a thread, "By the way, I thought of this unrelated
tangent, and here is a patch to demonstrate the idea" is not
entirely unwelcome, but keep it brief and make sure you get out
of the thread quickly to avoid distracting the main discussion.
3. In either case, it makes it easier to find the final submission
of the patch if it is not buried deep in the discussion.
a. It is OK to start a new thread (without in-reply-to), with
"here is a polished version of the patch and/or the idea I
floated in <message-id>" under the three-dash line (for a
single patch) or in the cover letter (for a series).
b. An updated iteration of a multi-patch series sometimes is made
as a direct response to the cover letter of the previous
iteration (iow, the cover letter for vN+1 has the message id
of the cover letter for vN on its in-reply-to header).
I think the "b4" tool prefers 3b. over 3a., and it may be also easy
on human readers who read the list in threaded mail/news reader.
Thanks.
