CannedResponses: respond and reroll, you need both
An existing entry reminds authors not to stop at sending a response message to review comments but incorporate changes to produce a new version of patches. But some contributors, both old and new, seem to forget that they need to respond to reviews and engage in dialog in addition to eventually updating their patches. Stress that they need to do both.
Junio C Hamano committed
Mar 26, 2026 at 14:38 UTC
01e29b2ee7f391628f73b46dc7d430f408cea53a
1 file changed
+22
CannedResponses
+22
@@ -60,6 +60,28 @@ They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
60
posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
61
ahead.
62
----------------------------------------------------------------
63
+[not just reroll, but respond to reviews]
64
+
65
+After getting review comments but before sending a new iteration of
66
+your patches, do respond to the review e-mails directly to develop a
67
+dialog between you as the author and your reviewers.
68
+
69
+A new iteration of a patch is harder to read without such a dialog
70
+telling reviewers what the author thought after getting suggestions in
71
+earlier reviews.
72
+
73
+Did they agree and took the suggestion? Did they disagree but took
74
+the suggestion anyway, and if so why did they think the suggested
75
+changes are not good? Did they disagree and did not take the
76
+suggestion and if so why? They changed the code but not in the way
77
+suggested in the review, but why the new way was thought to be better
78
+than both the original and the reviewer input?
79
+
80
+These are natural questions reviewers want to get answered, and some
81
+of them can be answered by reading a new iteration of patch (e.g., did
82
+they or did they not update the patch?) but not others (e.g., why did
83
+they or did they not do so?).
84
+----------------------------------------------------------------
85
[make us come to you, begging]
86
87
I've seen from time to time people ask "I am thinking of doing this;