From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: contributing to Emacs Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 13:22:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83pm5tnk78.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83v8fnslfz.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8fnh1h2.fsf@web.de> <83mt0zs9rc.fsf@gnu.org> <0a968a4e1b267c0f15dd237e6ea12a709fc06d5e.camel@yandex.ru> <838rcisj7o.fsf@gnu.org> <6537fa5fa5c1fe8437ed99ee0988e35895f5a54b.camel@yandex.ru> <8423a35750d8d8e0437c7708f6b4d0bbdfdb7fe0.camel@yandex.ru> <87o7ldf7ky.fsf@web.de> <8cc19084ab18d0adb0f2cee4af14aa1b1d914a83.camel@yandex.ru> <83sfapnl57.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29309"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: arne_bab@web.de, ams@gnu.org, luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Konstantin Kharlamov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 18 12:23:19 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qApZ0-0007Pt-R0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 12:23:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qApYa-0007gy-NG; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 06:22:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qApYZ-0007gg-Mv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 06:22:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qApYZ-0000Zv-4H; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 06:22:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=bhOMu9Q7VCOlrkoCHQwY2L8n6WlfL45t0Sn24P6Eqd4=; b=UtN3fGll2OyuMSqJlTe9 DmWC+MjdTExfiWzNS0ihjvFNKgcV5g3hAIz81MjN8wuhA78JHbjomf2oT0N6onGocxZWeeosg/mre crJtXH/5cmX1hNZ6cnFdBcV5YrIzRExtDT1xlWlvusTBeFBNB36uOCEuWQRFSkDRVQ3TSQA62Zjwh NM2MNLNptslJ+tIpRDzw1LqhLR3VfC6F4yNAuD9fwCyfuy9l77dCbsHV5UxbVvvpHw2f3XHtDPx6x fm8R335W7ky7Nyxog1YDOMIyp6eN8P4w7YHmx4NeIvJPfzD0CUSwOxEjSbWnyKqlnvNug1Ymb9gJ5 lgqpi2elNmWYcg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qApYY-00059X-IF; Sun, 18 Jun 2023 06:22:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Konstantin Kharlamov on Sun, 18 Jun 2023 13:13:23 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:306951 Archived-At: > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > Cc: arne_bab@web.de, ams@gnu.org, luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 13:13:23 +0300 > > On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 13:02 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > > > Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , eliz@gnu.org, luangruo@yahoo.com, > > >         emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2023 12:56:33 +0300 > > > > > > Okay, so, here's an obvious one: a patch series sent to > > > bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > > > should not create separate bugreports for every patch. > > > > > > In ML-managed projects it is typical to send patches as a series, and when > > > you > > > doing that results in such surprising behaviour, it creates an additional > > > emotional and mental load both for you and for maintainers who would need to > > > do > > > something with these separate reports. > > > > Our preference is to send patches as a single patch, not as patch > > series. > > > > That said, people are sometimes sending series, and we don't ask them > > to resend, we process those series anyway. > > > > As for separate bug reports, this is easily fixed by merging them. > > Unfortunately merging bugreports does not fix that. The last patch I had to > Emacs was sent with a cover letter and resulted in two reports: one for the > cover letter and another for the patch itself. You may remember that it resulted > in a confusion, because α) discussions happened on both threads, but then a new > patch version was only sent to one of them, so there other thread wasn't > notified that comments were addressed, and β) you may remember 3 months after > the patch got accepted someone was asking the status. Which is because one of > the threads was closed saying that the patch is applied, but then the other > thread into which a person was looking has no such comment. > > > So I see no problem here. > > This is psychology. Having a report per patch may not be a problem for you, but > when a contributor sends patches and gets into such situation, they do not know > it is okay. They will be frightened and frustrated, because it looks like > something just went wrong. Such situation being okay needs at least be mentioned > in "sending patches" section, and at best it should just work. Like I said: we prefer a single patch for each changeset. The problems presented by patch series are one reason. And yet, we will never reject a patch series, even though it makes the process inconvenient and confusing. I don't see what else do we need to argued about here.