Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> >> No cover letter to summarize the changes? > > A range-diff would have been nice, too, as well as replying-to the > previous iteration so that they're all within the same email thread. Yes, especially the threading would help both those who missed previous iterations and those who reviewed them. Range-diff is often helpful when came with a good summary. Just like a patch alone without a good proposed log message is not a good way to help reviewers understand the issue the patch tries to solve, a cover with range-diff alone only shows what is different from the previous iteration, but does not say why the changes were made, so it is not a good substitute for an explanation by author's words. I may have suggested GGG if the author appeared a total beginner with the e-mail workflow (and especially if it were a single-patch topic), but Alex seems to be doing fine otherwise, and also GGG has its own learning curve (e.g. it is rare to see a good cover letter with per-iteration summaries, unless the author is one of those experienced list regulars), so I left it up to Alex to choose how to reach the desired end result. Thanks.
