![]() Minor revision might be a few weeks, major revisions might be a month or two. Typically authors are given a deadline for submitting revisions. It’s a judgement call, but it has to do with time and resources. In these cases, an editor needs to decide whether the paper should stay in the system and go through several rounds of review or decline the paper and encourage the authors to come back after taking the feedback into consideration. “Revise and resubmit” (or it’s sibling decision of “reject and resubmit”) often means that there is something the editor (or possibly reviewers) liked, but the paper needs a good bit of work. “version 2” based on that feedback, and so on until it gets includedīy whoever you want to include your changes.Authors receiving a “revise and resubmit” decision are not likely to do a happy dance upon receiving the email. Then when that has been discussed you send out a Where you use git format-patch and git send-email to send out.Tag if you incorporated that optional step The “differences” part will be the same as the one in the annotated.Update the PR description to mention the current version and the.Make a tag -v2 and force-push the changes.Change your branch (rewrite) based on feedback.Optional: Make an annotated tag and store the series-version.Push these tags also so that the reviewers can use them.Like I said I have no GitHub-specific answer. 1e8697b5c4e (submodule-helper: check repo_init()Ĥ: e36303f4d3d = 4: 3a5a323cd91 versioncmp.c: refactor config reading next commit 3c8687a73ee (add `config_set` API for caching config-like files, )Ģ. itself is smaller because of this change to migrate some callers awayġ. fix git_configset_get_value_multi() to return "int", and that change But as an intermediate step to that we'll need to that they'll ferry our underlying "ret" along, rather than normalizing In a subsequent commit we'll fix the other *_get_*() functions to so * Glen pointed out that ejecting a commit in v6 orphaned aĬorresponding forward-reference in a commit message, fix that.Īnd the range-diff says that this is the only change: Range-diff against v6:ġ: 43fdb0cf50c = 1: 9f297a35e14 config tests: cover blind spots in git_die_config() testsĢ: 4b0799090c9 = 2: 45d483066ef config tests: add "NULL" tests for *_get_value_multi()ģ: 62fe2f04e71 ! 3: a977b7b188f config API: add and use a "git_config_get()" family of Commit message They also describe how each series version is different from theįor example, in this patch series, the author describes the Then you can use that command: git range-diff main feature-v1 feature-v2 “version 1”, store the “version 2” when you send that out, and so Store the state of your branch as a lightweight tag (store the initial That they provide the output of git-range-diff(1) for each round of What people sometimes do with the patch series (via email) workflow is The problem with this is that the commit history becomes super messy, and there will be commits with bugs that are fixed in later commits.Īttaching below a capture of revision diffs in Phabricator, for those unaware of what I'm talking about. The only alternative I can think of is not amending commits, creating new commits instead and not force pushing. If not, do people have any alternatives to github? (apart from Phabricator?). Is there a way we can accomplish something similar with Github? I imagine that there's a different workflow that we're not aware of. That way, you can only focus on reviewing the few new changes, rather than the 20 commits. For example, it lets you compare changes from revision 1 with revision 2 ). In the past, I've used Phabricator, which keeps track of every revision of a PR, so that you can diff changes between different revisions and solves this problem beautifully ( ). I haven't found a way to deal with this problem. Now reviewers need to re-review the whole thing from scratch, even if the new changes were pretty minor. Joe now amends his commits with the requested changes and (force) pushes the new revision of the PR. Now other developers spend a long time reviewing that PR and ask for a few changes/fixes. ![]() ![]() He submits an initial revision of his work in a big PR with 20 commits.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |