From df8a9e1411864883f78d2f37496247f8d0cdd18d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin Tobler Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 13:38:36 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: extend guidance for submitting patches Before submitting patches on the mailing list, it is often a good idea to check for previous related discussions or if similar work is already in progress. This enables better coordination amongst contributors and could avoid duplicating work. Additionally, it is often recommended to give reviewers some time to reply to a patch series before sending new versions. This helps collect broader feedback and reduces unnecessary churn from rapid rerolls. Document this guidance in "Documentation/SubmittingPatches" accordingly. Signed-off-by: Justin Tobler Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index e270ccbe85..5acd692ad7 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -38,10 +38,23 @@ they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help, you don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would help you find out who they are. +It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed +previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in +progress. Prior discussions may contain useful context, design +considerations, or earlier attempts at solving the same problem. Being +aware of such discussions can help you avoid duplicating work and may +allow you to coordinate with other contributors working in the same +area. + . You get comments and suggestions for improvements. You may even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form. You are expected to respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking them into account while preparing an updated set of patches. ++ +It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide +feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated +series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader +input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations. . Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people who spent their time to improve your patch. Go back to step (2). From 9ab923b4d924e25d6ddfe8413378fb8a38d8cd1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 12:59:42 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] SQUASH??? mark-up fix Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 5acd692ad7..359f5fb74e 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help, you don't demand). +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would help you find out who they are. - ++ It is also a good idea to check whether your topic has been discussed previously on the mailing list, or whether similar work is already in progress. Prior discussions may contain useful context, design