Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 6 Apr 2018 13:00:23 -0700
From:   Vadim Lomovtsev <Vadim.Lomovtsev@caviumnetworks.com>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     vadim.lomovtsev@cavium.com
Subject: Re: [Question] patch posting process
Message-ID: <20180406200023.GA16089@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180406182916.GA15772@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180406192146.GA384@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180406192146.GA384@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: cavium.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2018 20:00:26.1999 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cfa2c4b5-8c1b-4955-6d49-08d59bf90a46
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 711e4ccf-2e9b-4bcf-a551-4094005b6194
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR07MB3002
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Willy,

Thank you for your opinion, it's very helpful.

WBR,
Vadim

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:21:46PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Vadim,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:29:16AM -0700, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I bring my Apologise for wasting your time, but ..
> 
> Questions about doing things right rarely are a waste of time if they save
> others from having to do useless work!
> 
> > May I ask for some clarification.. When we're speaking of 'posting patches shortly'
> > does it mean to send them in next few hours ?
> > Or would it be more acceptable to post one version per day
> > even for very small changes in between ?
> > 
> > Kernel posting guides says that one should wait for about a week for respond,
> > but in my case I've got feedback rather quickly (thanks a lot for that!)
> > and I'd assume that I can proceed with posting next version.
> > 
> > So, what is the proper approach here - should one wait day or two
> > before posting next version even if changes are very simple ?
> 
> Generally speaking, it's better to proceed ASAP. Reviewing patches requires
> some concentration and often some time to get into the context. Speaking for
> myself only, when I'm reviewing patches (I reserve time to do it), I prefer
> to get 3 round trips the same day than one per week and each time having to
> try to recall what it was about and what I proposed.
> 
> Also some people may only do that on spare time, week-ends or dedicated day
> in the week. If you sit on their e-mail for no reason, you expose yourself
> to the risk of having to wait for the next feedback. This is where the week
> comes from. Another nice side effect of the week delay is that some people
> send a first version for reviewing and figure by themselves that this
> version is bogus, then send a fixed version. That reduces the number of
> required work for reviewers.
> 
> On the other hand, it's not nice to rush quick updates without verifying
> that you properly addressed all reported points (addressed either in code
> or discussion). Thus my recommendation would be that if you can iterate
> one or two extra rounds the same day, that's generally much better. And
> in any case if the reviewer doesn't have more time to assign to you, he
> will switch to something else and you'll have to wait. Thus the good rule
> could be that ideally reviewers should not needlessly be waiting for you.
> 
> One important point however is *not* to send multiple versions of the
> same series without waiting for a review. Someone might already be reading
> your patchset and be pissed off by discovering he's reading outdated
> code. Reserve this for the cases where you've let a huge bug slip
> through.
> 
> Just my two cents, others will very likely have other advices.
> 
> Willy