From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5ADC46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5962C205F4 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="uSzP/nKF" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5962C205F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727475AbeJXFGg (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:06:36 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com ([209.85.208.182]:36661 "EHLO mail-lj1-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725761AbeJXFGf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 01:06:35 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id s15-v6so2685295lji.3 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:41:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MI3HnYSW9R01g1QkagjdCVkYoGAaef8P3ar3yvh8UHg=; b=uSzP/nKFwUAWlOeluh9iuqC+oV66IcQHupa8rDwjCMLEkFmYfkii357eFal/W4Uv6Z 7O31qbM2OQp+QEJphb8jOsmP+h16doJjRy7vRGgEZ49tyr5uW9hjHrugZr+pkTh97fe/ 0uDQUHrtsfkhgH7UZ1HBAN/PWtt1+THOlZzObm00xhhOGli7vNaGY9QyDJldjtWDY0Tk D+LYFaot8M8HMVLv2kmwxV0MYpzFRsaPtLgS3ts9sERgV/d7O+ZSgWy9tts1Lw8LP51w 5DtY2GAy8ZUyKog5SUoEiSEiNc9WWf5twgF3jDbe3jrtdC0QkK+paY1a2D6U+WG6lGAM ZN3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MI3HnYSW9R01g1QkagjdCVkYoGAaef8P3ar3yvh8UHg=; b=lh3SG4m2laDtcv03joMob24Rdsz+pYjkcwXG1gJ4fg34zwecoophadJgWuqrOLmPSE o/RT0hb3btoS6rXydNZntscOadYzufFOhIMjz1VoJXxY39gpyuFneZcg7Mm9ZGsXKP5L PC32xuj/k9+XGFveR6kJTqrXLYJUH8TMOIxi5HkurpIJ0VMhxTl0yaGdruhiYBJpuzOu Z4RvtW4GA/QRcBFtSI0b/hkmZfzo5CCB615GHX+FwEQvkvgTb46+H39NQkpwiu97tsys i1mR7m08x/VVEXujHxDKgsRjPdLw36glmPX+Pq4aEF6hJj9fN15UdkT5Fm9Ze6/5tu7K cDIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiYQyd5wONbxeQ7xiGQhusNf3TlNPG+K/qPSNaq4B7WymJeDGqS jtB0CvyFvbAifz0kIZpycAq3Yu5O X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60QKEkiJRI0pr7D2UBxORj/14MFwbkNNcFVEEDG3vn/JMPmkZATu+S9Ht1YL6pDD4Fl6DhxMg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8514:: with SMTP id j20-v6mr35718841lji.111.1540327291424; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.18] (dks61.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.24.22.61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 30-v6sm332179ljw.48.2018.10.23.13.41.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails.. To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ulf Hansson , Boris Brezillon , Catalin Marinas , Christoph Hellwig , Guenter Roeck , Jens Axboe , Linus Walleij , Mark Brown , Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: From: Jacek Anaszewski Message-ID: <9ebaa11f-5406-c96e-52d7-4fba8770eb05@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:41:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/23/2018 02:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one >> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was >> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he >> pulls. >> >> In fact, I reacted to them not being there when he sent himself his >> fake pull messages. Because he didn't then send himself an ack for >> having pulled it ;( >> >> And I actually went into this saying "I'll try to do the same". >> >> But after having actually started doing the pulls, I notice how it >> doesn't work well with my traditional workflow, and so I haven't been >> doing it after all. >> >> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test >> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is >> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when >> I'm on the road and using my laptop), I go on and look at the *next* >> pull (or one of the other pending ones). >> >> So by the time the build test has finished, the original pull request >> is already long gone - archived and done - and I have moved on. >> >> End result: answering the pull request is somewhat inconvenient to my >> flow, which is why I haven't done it. >> >> In contrast, this email is written "after the fact", just scripting >> "who did I pull for and then push out" by just looking at the git >> tree. Which sucks, because it means that I don't actually answer the >> original email at all, and thus lose any cc's for other people or >> mailing lists. That would literally be done better by simple >> automation. >> >> So I've got a few options: >> >> - just don't do it >> >> - acking the pull request before it's validated and finalized. >> >> - starting the reply when doing the pull, leaving the email open in a >> separate window, going on to the next pull request, and then when >> build tests are done and I'll start the next one, finish off the old >> pending email. >> >> and obviously that first option is the easiest one. I'm not sure what >> Greg did, and during the later rc's it probably doesn't matter, >> because there likely simply aren't any overlapping operations. >> >> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my >> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad >> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to >> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that >> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because >> it ended up being broken"). >> >> The third option would work reliably, and not have the "oh, my pull is >> only tentatively done" issue. It just adds an annoying back-and-forth >> switch to my workflow. >> >> So I'm mainly pinging people I've already pulled to see how much >> people actually _care_. Yes, the ack is nice, but do people care >> enough that I should try to make that workflow change? Traditionally, >> you can see that I've pulled from just seeing the end result when it >> actually hits the public tree (which is yet another step removed from >> the steps above - I do build tests between every pull, but I generally >> tend to push out the end result in batches, usually a couple of times >> a day). >> >> Comments? > > Welcome back! > > I have no strong opinions, in regards to the acks. > > Your current approach, with no ack at all, just means that I have to > do "git remote update" a few times, which I probably would have done > anyways. So, to me, feel free to pick whatever option that makes the > life easiest for you. Same for me, I do the update anyway to see if and how my pull request has been merged. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski