Skip to contentSkip to conversation

SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command

PATCH RESEND In review Thomas Gummerer 3 participants 3 messages Apr 11, 2018 Documentation

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH RESEND 1/1 SubmittingPatches: mention the git contacts command

Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it quite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of people to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility, which makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a change.

This should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by simply using a single command.

---

I've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an the rc period. Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being okay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)). As I still think this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending it here.

 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +2 -2
index a1d0feca36..945f8edb46 100644
@@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`.  That is
 not a text/plain, it's something else.
 
 Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
-people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from
-`git blame $path` and `git shortlog --no-merges $path` would help to
+people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git
+contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to
 identify them), to solicit comments and reviews.
 
 :1: footnote:[The current maintainer: [email protected]]
Signature · 1 line
2.16.2.804.g6dcf76e11
#1 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Thomas Gummerer

Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it quite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of people to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility, which makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a change.

This should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by simply using a single command.

Quoted 8 lines

---

I've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an the rc period. Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being okay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)). As I still think this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending it here.

I didn't know about this tool, and it seems helpful. I plan to use it now. Thanks!

Quoted 18 lines
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/SubmittingPatches +2 -2
index a1d0feca36..945f8edb46 100644
@@ -260,8 +260,8 @@ that starts with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----`.  That is
  not a text/plain, it's something else.
 
  Send your patch with "To:" set to the mailing list, with "cc:" listing
-people who are involved in the area you are touching (the output from
-`git blame $path` and `git shortlog --no-merges $path` would help to
+people who are involved in the area you are touching (the `git
+contacts` command in `contrib/contacts/` can help to
  identify them), to solicit comments and reviews.
 
  :1: footnote:[The current maintainer: [email protected]]
#2 lore raw
In reply to Thomas Gummerer
Quoted 9 lines · Thomas Gummerer

Instead of just mentioning 'git blame' and 'git shortlog', which make it quite hard for new contributors to pick out the appropriate list of people to cc on their patch series, mention the 'git contacts' utility, which makes it much easier to get a reasonable list of contacts for a change.

This should help new contributors pick out a reasonable cc list by simply using a single command.

Quoted 8 lines

---

I've originally sent this at <20180316213323.GC2224@hank>, during an the rc period. Eric had some comments, which I interpreted as being okay with the change (hope I'm not mistaken there :)). As I still think this would be an improvement for new contributors, I'm resending it here.

I don't think you misinterpreted my response. Your answers to my review questions seemed satisfactory, so I wasn't expecting any changes.