CannedResponses: respond and reroll, you need both

An existing entry reminds authors not to stop at sending a response
message to review comments but incorporate changes to produce a new
version of patches.  But some contributors, both old and new, seem
to forget that they need to respond to reviews and engage in dialog
in addition to eventually updating their patches.  Stress that they
need to do both.

diff --git a/CannedResponses b/CannedResponses
index 496ffaa0396084056d5f7a26d601c395c12c7b34..68d2df8632cad28e0f5ac7eed94ec47536b87b01 100644 (file)
--- a/CannedResponses
+++ b/CannedResponses
@@ -60,6 +60,28 @@ They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
 posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
 ahead.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
+[not just reroll, but respond to reviews]
+
+After getting review comments but before sending a new iteration of
+your patches, do respond to the review e-mails directly to develop a
+dialog between you as the author and your reviewers.
+
+A new iteration of a patch is harder to read without such a dialog
+telling reviewers what the author thought after getting suggestions in
+earlier reviews.
+
+Did they agree and took the suggestion?  Did they disagree but took
+the suggestion anyway, and if so why did they think the suggested
+changes are not good?  Did they disagree and did not take the
+suggestion and if so why?  They changed the code but not in the way
+suggested in the review, but why the new way was thought to be better
+than both the original and the reviewer input?
+
+These are natural questions reviewers want to get answered, and some
+of them can be answered by reading a new iteration of patch (e.g., did
+they or did they not update the patch?) but not others (e.g., why did
+they or did they not do so?).
+----------------------------------------------------------------
 [make us come to you, begging]
 
 I've seen from time to time people ask "I am thinking of doing this;