mirror of
https://github.com/git/git
synced 2024-10-02 14:45:21 +00:00
Meta/Canned: polish 'not just respond' section
This commit is contained in:
parent
8992799f58
commit
3450424185
|
@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ the stage and stating the objective first, before going into how the
|
|||
patch solved it.
|
||||
|
||||
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
[polish your history]
|
||||
[polish your history before sending]
|
||||
|
||||
We frown upon a patch series that makes mistakes in an earlier step,
|
||||
only to fix them in a later step. The "git rebase -i" command helps
|
||||
|
@ -44,6 +44,18 @@ e-mail response. It is pointing out that the end product, either the
|
|||
patch text or the proposed log message, is not clear to target
|
||||
audience and needs update.
|
||||
|
||||
We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either
|
||||
rebut or admit the issues raised. It may be that a reviewer's point
|
||||
were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly
|
||||
fine.
|
||||
|
||||
But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing
|
||||
the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch
|
||||
text or the proposed log message being unclear. Of course, the
|
||||
review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue.
|
||||
They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
|
||||
posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
|
||||
ahead.
|
||||
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
[make us come to you, begging]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue