Finding mistakes in and improving your own patches is a good idea, but doing so too quickly is being inconsiderate to reviewers who have just seen the initial iteration and taking their time to review it. Encourage new developers to perform such a self review before they send out their patches, not after. After sending a patch that they immediately found mistakes in, they are welcome to comment on them, mentioning what and how they plan to improve them in an updated version, before sending out their updates. Helped-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> --- * Sorry for a slow update. Even though the topic is about not updating too quickly, this update was long overdue. Not a whole lot changed. Primary change is the later part of the proposed log message, which was helped by Torsten's comments, to which this message is a response to. Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt index ccfd0cb5f3..1ede3f8e37 100644 --- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt +++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt @@ -1256,6 +1256,37 @@ index 88f126184c..38da593a60 100644 [[now-what]] == My Patch Got Emailed - Now What? +After you sent out your first patch, you may find mistakes in it, or +a different and better way to achieve the goal of the patch. But +please resist the temptation to send a new version immediately. + + - If the mistakes you found are minor, send a reply to your patch as + if you were a reviewer and mention that you will fix them in an + updated version. + + - On the other hand, if you think you want to change the course so + drastically that reviews on the initial patch would become + useless, send a reply to your patch to say so immediately to + avoid wasting others' time (e.g. "I am working on a better + approach, so please ignore this patch, and wait for the updated + version.") + +Then give reviewers enough time to process your initial patch before +sending an updated version (unless you retracted the initial patch, +that is). + +Now, the above is a good practice if you sent your initial patch +prematurely without polish. But a better approach of course is to +avoid sending your patch prematurely in the first place. + +Keep in mind that people in the development community do not have to +see your patch immediately after you wrote it. Instead of seeing +the initial version right now, that will be followed by several +updated "oops, I like this version better than the previous one" +versions over 2 days, reviewers would more appreciate if a single +polished version came 2 days late and that version with fewer +mistakes were the only one they need to review. + [[reviewing]] === Responding to Reviews -- 2.41.0-376-gcba07a324d
