Merge branch 'wy/doc-clarify-review-replies' into seen

Documentation on community contribution guidelines has been updated to
encourage replying to review comments before rerolling, and to advise
a default limit of at most one reroll per day to give reviewers across
different time zones enough time to participate.

* wy/doc-clarify-review-replies:
  doc: advise batching patch rerolls
  doc: encourage review replies before rerolling

Documentation/MyFirstContribution.adoc

@@ -1416,6 +1416,26 @@ previous one" patches over 2 days), reviewers would strongly prefer if a
 single polished version came 2 days later instead, and that version with
 fewer mistakes were the only one they would need to review.
 
+This consideration applies not only when going from the initial patch to v2,
+but also to later iterations of the same series. There is no fixed rule for how
+long to wait before sending a new version. A useful default is to send at most
+one new version of the same patch series per day. This gives multiple reviewers
+time to comment, gives reviewers across time zones a fair chance to
+participate, lets you batch feedback together, and gives you time to think
+through the comments you received. Knowing that you should not immediately send
+another version also encourages you to review the patches more carefully before
+sending them, catch small mistakes such as typos and off-by-one errors
+yourself, and let reviewers spend more of their attention on design,
+algorithms, and other substantial issues.
+
+The right timing depends on the topic and the feedback. Larger series usually
+need more review time. If the only comments so far are minor, such as typo
+fixes, it often makes sense to wait a little longer in case deeper reviews are
+still coming. If the comments require substantial rework, sending a new version
+sooner may save reviewers from spending time on a version you already know will
+change significantly. If the topic is close to being accepted and the remaining
+comments are small, a quicker new version may also be fine.
+
 
 [[reviewing]]
 === Responding to Reviews
@@ -1423,11 +1443,13 @@ fewer mistakes were the only one they would need to review.
 After a few days, you will hopefully receive a reply to your patchset with some
 comments. Woohoo! Now you can get back to work.
 
-It's good manners to reply to each comment, notifying the reviewer that you have
-made the change suggested, feel the original is better, or that the comment
-inspired you to do something a new way which is superior to both the original
-and the suggested change. This way reviewers don't need to inspect your v2 to
-figure out whether you implemented their comment or not.
+It's good manners to reply to each comment in the mailing list discussion
+instead of letting the next version of your patch be your only response. Tell
+the reviewer whether you plan to make the suggested change, keep the original,
+or pursue a different approach. This way reviewers can respond to your reasoning
+before you spend time preparing a version they may not agree with, and later do
+not need to inspect your v2 to figure out whether you implemented their comment
+or not.
 
 Reviewers may ask you about what you wrote in the patchset, either in
 the proposed commit log message or in the changes themselves.  You

Documentation/SubmittingPatches

@@ -48,8 +48,12 @@ area.
 
 . You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
   them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
-  respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
-  them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
+  respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, instead of
+  letting an updated patch series be your only response.  Tell
+  reviewers which suggestions you plan to use, which ones you disagree
+  with, and when a comment leads you to consider a different approach.
+  Use these replies and any follow-up discussion as input when
+  preparing an updated set of patches.
 +
 Be particularly mindful of critiques regarding the high-level design
 or viability of your proposal (e.g., questioning if the feature is
@@ -69,7 +73,14 @@ considered ready for merging.
 It is often beneficial to allow some time for reviewers to provide
 feedback before sending a new version, rather than sending an updated
 series immediately after receiving a review. This helps collect broader
-input and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.
+input, gives reviewers in different time zones a fair chance to comment,
+and avoids unnecessary churn from many rapid iterations.  Waiting also
+encourages you to polish each version before sending it, so reviewers can
+focus on substantial issues rather than typos or other small mistakes.
++
+As a rough default, avoid sending more than one new version of the same
+series per day, while considering the size of the series, the depth of
+review, and how close the topic is to being accepted.
 
 . These early update iterations are expected to be full replacements,
   not incremental updates on top of what you posted already.  If you
@@ -660,7 +671,10 @@ grouped into their own e-mail thread to help readers find all parts of the
 series.  To that end, send them as replies to either an additional "cover
 letter" message (see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch.
 Here is a link:MyFirstContribution.html#v2-git-send-email[step-by-step guide] on
-how to submit updated versions of a patch series.
+how to submit updated versions of a patch series.  Before sending another
+version, make sure you have answered meaningful review comments in the existing
+discussion.  Also give reviewers enough time to comment before sending another
+version.
 
 If your log message (including your name on the
 `Signed-off-by:` trailer) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that