On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:12 AM shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 05:19:13AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > It probably would have been helpful to reviewers if the patch's > > commit message mentioned that it only converts some of the > > instances, but it's not worth rerolling the patch just for that. > > Except that, the commit title should not either include > "[Outreachy][Patch v1]" here. From these two reasons, I think we should > reroll the patch. Your observation about outdated/confusing "[foo]" annotations is certainly something the submitter should take into consideration for future submissions, but does not seem worthy of a reroll, IMHO. First, `git am` will strip those off automatically, so they won't become part of the permanent project history anyhow when/if Junio picks up the patch. Second, asking for a reroll for something which does not impact the correctness of either the patch or the commit message just makes busy-work for the submitter and wastes reviewer time (which is a limited resource on this project). Third, the point of a microproject is to expose the submitter to the workflow of the Git project and to the review process, and for reviewers to see how the submitter responds. That goal has already been achieved in this case, and rerolling for something so minor provides no additional benefit in that regard.
