Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> +Make your changes with `git rebase -i`. Once you're ready with the next
>> +iteration of your patch, the process is fairly similar to before. Generate your
>> +patches again, but with some new flags:
>
> I wonder if "Make your changes with `git rebase -i`" is a bit too
> terse for newcomers to understand. Perhaps a bit more verbose:
>
> Refine your patch series by using `git rebase -i` to adjust
> commits based upon reviewer comments. Once the patch series is
> ready for submission, generate your patches again, but with some
> new flags:
>
I like your wording :) It seems "obvious" that one should incorporate
reviewer comments, but your phrasing makes it that much clearer.
>> +The `--range-diff master..psuh-v1` parameter tells `format-patch` to include a
>> +range-diff between `psuh-v1` and `psuh` (see linkgit:git-range-diff[1]). This
>> +helps tell reviewers about the differences between your v1 and v2 patches.
>
> This leaves dangling the question of where the range-diff is placed. Maybe say:
>
> ... tells `format-patch` to include a range-diff between ... in
> the cover letter.
>
Sounds good.
>> +The `-v2` parameter tells `format-patch` to output "v2" patches. For instance,
>> +you may notice that your v2 patches, are all named like
>> +`v2-000n-my-commit-subject.patch`. `-v2` will also format your patches by
>> +prefixing them with "[PATCH V2]" instead of "[PATCH]", and your range-diff will
>> +be prefaced with "Range-diff against v1".
>
> s/V2/v2/
Thanks!
>> +Afer you run this command, `format-patch` will output the patches to the `psuh/`
>> +directory, alongside the v1 patches. Using a single directory makes it easy to
>> +refer to the old v1 patches while proofreading the v2 patches, but you will need
>> +to be careful to send out only the v2 patches. We will use a pattern like
>> +"psuh/v2-*.patch" ("psuh/*.patch" would match v1 and v2 patches).
>
> To avoid any sort of confusion, perhaps:
>
> ... "psuh/v2-*.patch" (not "psuh/*.patch" which would match v1 and
> v2 patches)
Agree that making this explicit is a good idea.
