Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 12:58 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > This v4 is just about fixing a few bugs in the tests using the SHA-256 >> > object format compared to the v3. (I had issues with CI tests on v3, >> > so I sent it without waiting for the results.) >> >> We haven't heard much after a few comments were posted on this >> latest round, since Elijah's >> <20250619133630.727274-1-christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>; I understand >> that it would be the author's turn to respond (the response does not >> necessarily have to be with an updated iteration). If so, let me >> mark the topic as Stalled in the draft of the latest issue of the >> "What's cooking" report. > > I will hopefully send a v5 later today. Thanks. By the way, I noticed that you often do not respond to reviews until the last minute, at the same time as when you send your next iteration, or even soon after doing so. That is quite different from how other contributors operate, i.e. respond and engage in discussions triggered by the reviews, and after people involved in discussion got an (even rough) idea of what the right next step would be, if not a total consensus, send the next iteration. I do not know which style is more efficient form of cooperation, but it somewhat makes my job harder, if I do not hear much _heartbeats_ after I see review comments on the list. I do not mind waiting for seeing the next round for quite a while---after all, any substantial (re)work takes time. And responding to reviews may need thinking things through carefully, which may take some time, so I would not demand an immediate response, either. But it would be nearly impossible to feel the current status of such a topic---a few review comments are seen, the author goes silent for a while, we cannot tell if the author is working on a new iteration or where the author and reviewers agree and disagree. Also a review response that comes at the same time or immediately after a new iteration is already sent out makes it look like the author is refusing to continue discussion and reviewers are not welcome to make follow-up suggestions during such a discussion. Instead, the next iteration comes as a fait accompli, and makes it less useful to continue the review discussion on the previous round by responding to such a late response.
