On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:57:59 -0400
Drew DeVault <sir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Git is fairly ubiquitous these days, and the additional information in
> this documentation for preparing patches without it is not especially
> relevant anymore and may serve to confuse new contributors.
>
> Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault <sir@xxxxxxxxx>
This is generally good, but I have a comment (of course!)...
[...]
> @@ -380,13 +326,17 @@ server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note
> that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up
> anyway.
>
> -8) Respond to review comments
> +``git request-pull`` may be used to generate an email which summarizes your changes
> +and provides a URL to fetch your tree from. See :ref:`_request_pull`.
I'm not sure we want to be suggesting pull requests in our basic document
on patch submission. Few, if any, maintainers will pull from developers
who still need this document.
Actually, I think this whole section ("E-mail size") is wrong, now that I
look at it. People who post patches behind a URL rarely get a favorable
response. Maybe we should just delete that section entirely?
Thanks,
jon
