Hi Lukas,

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 06:51:57PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> There is room for improvement here. Can you confirm that attaching a
> patch file per commit to the email would fix this usability issue?

I'd say yes, provided the attachments are prefixed with a sequence
number, like git-format-patch does. However I think we should set
reasonable limits to 10 patches or less to save all list members
from being bombed if someone sends a huge (or even bogus) PR. I
think that till a handful of patches (let's say two hands :-)) it's
still possible to let various participants give their opinion on
different patches. When you see patch 137/375 it's unlikely that
anyone will have a look at it so then falling back to the current
mode would work better. Similarly I think that if a patch is too
large the series should not be forwarded. I'm well aware that
"too large" is a bit vague. The idea is that few people if any
will spend their time reviewing a 1000-line patch. But this could
be applied to the whole series if easier. In the end I think that
such thresholds will serve as a hint for reviewers about what to
expect when seeing the announce.

> I just finally fixed the script for authors with non-ascii names (it
> crashed previously), I can add the file attachments to my todo list,
> if useful.

This could definitely be useful. But don't spend too much valuable time
on this, as this is not the source of contribs I'd like to encourage
the most considering the amount of fixes they usually require before
being merged. By the way I noticed that something changed recently on
Github, the curl command receives a redirect and now needs -L to follow


Reply via email to