Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: add section for iterating patches

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 02:30:39PM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:

quoted

From: Karthik Nayak <redacted>

Add a section to explain how to work around other in-flight patches and
how to navigate conflicts which arise as a series is being iterated.
This will provide the necessary steps that users can follow to reduce

s/This will/This provides/

Thanks, will change!

quoted

friction with other ongoing topics and also provides guidelines on how
the users can also communicate this to the list efficiently.

Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <redacted>
---

This came off a discussion wherein I sent a series based on `next`
instead of merging in conflicts [1]. This is mostly worded by Junio and
I've just put it together into a patch.

This is based off master, with 'jc/patch-flow-updates' merged in.

:)

quoted

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy18lpoqg.fsf@gitster.g/ (local)

 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 8332073e27..2fd94dc8de 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

@@ -608,6 +608,85 @@ patch, format it as "multipart/signed", not a text/plain message
 that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`.  That is
 not a text/plain, it's something else.

+=== Handling Conflicts and Iterating Patches
+
+When revising changes made to your patches, it's important to
+acknowledge the possibility of conflicts with other ongoing topics. To
+navigate these potential conflicts effectively, follow the recommended
+steps outlined below:

Okay. I was first wondering why we only mention conflicts when revising
changes. But I see there are other parts in the document where we
already mention the potential for conflicts, so this is fine.

quoted

+. Build on a suitable base branch, see the <<choose-starting-point, section above>>,
+and format-patch the series. If you are doing "rebase -i" in-place to
+update from the previous round, this will reuse the previous base so
+(2) and (3) may become trivial.
+
+. Find the base of where the last round was queued

It's somewhat unusual for bulleted lists to start with a dot, but this
is consistent with the remainder of this document.

Yeah, that's mostly why I added dots instead of asterisks here.

[snip]

quoted

+Do not forget to write in the cover letter you did this, including the
+topics you have in your base on top of 'master'.  Then go to (4).
+
+. Make a trial merge of your topic into 'next' and 'seen', e.g.
++
+    $ git checkout --detach 'origin/seen' &&
+    $ git revert -m 1 <the merge of the previous iteration into seen> &&
+    $ git merge kn/ref-transaction-symref

Let's remove the trailing '&&' lines. The leading dollar indicates that
this is interactive, so you wouldn't concatenate the commands like this.
Also, preceding code didn't have it.

Yeah, agreed, I will remove here and below

quoted

+The "revert" is needed if the previous iteration of your topic is
+already in 'seen' (like in this case).  You could choose to rebuild
+master..origin/seen from scratch while excluding your previous
+iteration, which may emulate what happens on the maintainers end more
+closely.
++
+This trial merge may conflict.  It is primarily to see what conflicts
+_other_ topics may have with your topic.  In other words, you do not
+have to depend on to make your topic work on 'master'.  It may become

I think there's either a word too many or missing  -- depend on what?

's/depend on/depend on it/' should do I think.

quoted

+the job of the other topic owners to resolve conflicts if your topic
+goes to 'next' before theirs.
++
+Make a note on what conflict you saw in the cover letter.  You do not
+necessarily have to resolve them, but it would be a good opportunity to
+learn what others are doing in an related area.

s/an/a

I think it makes sense to make it 's/an related area/related areas/'.

quoted

++
+    $ git checkout --detach 'origin/next' &&
+    $ git merge kn/ref-transaction-symref

Same comment here regarding the ampersands.

Other than that the additions look good to me, thanks!

Patrick

Thanks for the review. Will send a follow up version!