On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Taylor Blau <m...@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:04:53AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> Sorry for being such a stickler, but this is still too mushy. The
>> first two sentences are saying effectively the same thing. One or the
>> other should be dropped or they should somehow be combined in a way
>> that says everything that needs to be said without repetition.
> How do you feel about?
>   The `--type=<type>` option instructs 'git config' to ensure that
>   incoming and outgoing values are canonicalize-able under the given
>   <type>.  If no `--type=<type>` is given, no canonicalization will be
>   performed. Callers may unset the existing `--type` specifier with
>   `--no-type`.

This sounds fine. (Maybe s/the existing/an existing/)

> I think documenting that `--no-type` unsets any pre-existing `--type`
> specifier is worthwhile. That said, I also think that there's a way to
> combine the last two sentences, but it might be clearer as two smaller
> pieces rather than one big one.

Smaller, simpler, more easily digested sentences are a win.

>> If necessary, iterate over updates of this paragraph here in the email
>> thread until a polished version is reached rather than re-rolling the
>> entire series every few minutes.
> Thanks, and will do :-). I am quite new to this and was unaware of the
> situations when re-rolling is and isn't desirable. I am going to wait to
> re-roll this series until it has gathered more feedback, or at least
> consensus,

Just as it's a burden for you to repeatedly re-roll, it's also a
burden on reviewers to repeatedly re-read the series. Ideally, we'd
like fewer, rather than more, re-rolls, so it's good to nail down
questionable or ambiguous issues via normal email discussion before
going for a re-roll, and some reviewers try to assist with deciding if
a re-roll is needed by saying whether or not a review comment warrants

Allowing time for others to review and possibly comment on a series
before re-rolling is indeed a good idea.

Another useful tactic is to include, in the cover letter, an interdiff
between the previous and new versions, which gives reviewers a way to
quickly examine the changed parts of the series without necessarily
having to re-review each patch in entirety (an often time-consuming

> after which I think it will be ready for queueing as-is.

Famous last words ;-)

Reply via email to