Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a review of Eric Sunshin's > <20210830072118.91921-1-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> series. > > Side note: > > I'm generally trying to see if just sending a "proposed vX" is > more productive for everyone than patch feedback effectively > describing it in prose. I don't mean for this thing to be picked > up as-is by Junio without the consent of the submitter, and don't > have any desire to "pick up" the series myself. It is impossible to read the rationale behind the change between v1 and "proposed v2" in such arrangement, simply because there is no place in the "proposed v2" patch to write it down. Proposed commit log for it should not refer to what "v1" said, proposed postimage of the patch should not refer to what "v1" did. Worse, it is harder to pick good bits from "proposed v2" and reject the others. It is not a good way to give a feedback on "v1". It does not help the original author. It certainly does not help the maintainer, who now has to read two competing series, sort out the numbering mess. I do not know if it helps other reviewers, but offhand I do not know how it would, compared to the in-line comments on "v1", which is how we usually do reviews. > My review workflow is just applying the patches locally, fiddling > with them, so it seems like the most straightforward and helpful > thing to send the result of that local end-state, rather than > describing the changes I made in prose, and expect the original > submitter to reverse engineer that state if they're interested in > trying it out locally themselves. The end-state as an additional reference material attached as the end note of the review may be helpful, but the in-line comments on "v1" is a much better way to convey the reason why the change is suggested, I would think.
