LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacek Anaszewski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Boris Brezillon <email@example.com>,
Catalin Marinas <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <email@example.com>,
Guenter Roeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jens Axboe <email@example.com>,
Linus Walleij <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Mark Brown <email@example.com>,
Greg KH <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Git pull ack emails..
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:41:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 10/23/2018 02:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds
> <email@example.com> 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
>> 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
>> 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).
> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-23 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-23 8:41 Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 8:53 ` Linus Walleij
2018-10-23 9:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-10-23 9:45 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 20:04 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-25 14:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-26 17:36 ` Rob Herring
2018-10-26 21:15 ` Mark Brown
2018-11-01 10:18 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-11-07 10:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-11-07 23:56 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-10-31 14:27 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2018-10-31 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:02 ` Willy Tarreau
2018-10-23 9:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-10-23 9:23 ` Takashi Iwai
2018-10-23 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-10-23 9:17 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-10-23 9:47 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:19 ` Mark Brown
2018-10-23 9:25 ` Greg KH
2018-10-23 9:51 ` James Morris
2018-10-23 9:56 ` Jens Axboe
2018-10-23 12:13 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-10-23 20:41 ` Jacek Anaszewski [this message]
2018-10-23 20:01 ` Olof Johansson
2018-10-24 22:21 ` Kees Cook
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: Git pull ack emails..' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).