Subject: Re: bash completion patch

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:38:21 -0800

Thomas Rast <[email-masked]> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
> [...]
>>> don't forget to Cc Junio if
>>> you think your patch is ready for inclusion.
>>
>> Heh, thanks.  Everybody seems to think anything they send out to the
>> list is ready for inclusion, so the last part may not be a piece of
>> advice that is practically very useful, though ;-)
>
> That happens to me a lot, too.  Perhaps it would be a clearer signal if
> you had an alias (or just something like gitster+patch) that we can send
> it to if we mean "please include" instead of "what do you think of this"?

The intention from regulars like you I can read from the tone of the
message (or if you want to you can mention it in the log message).

If a clearer signal is really needed, perhaps we should say
something like:

    Send any patch that has not been reviewed on the list fist to
    the list and area experts (you can learn who they are by running
    "git blame" and "git shortlog" on the part of the system you are
    touching) for review.  Once the patch gains list consensus that
    it is a good change, and the maintainer hasn't picked it up
    (perhaps it fell through cracks), resend it to the maintainer
    with Cc: to the list.

We could phrase it more brutally:

    If it is the first time a particular patch is sent to the list, it
    almost always is not ready for inclusion.

but I do not think that is a good idea.