Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] Re: send-email: Add --delay for separating emails

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:51:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

When sending a patch series, the emails often arrive at the final
destination out of order; though these emails should be chained
via the In-Reply-To headers, some mail-viewing systems display
by order of arrival instead.

The --delay option provides a means for specifying that there
should be a certain number of seconds of delay between sending
emails, so that the arrival order can be controlled better.

Signed-off-by: Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx>

I think it may still be reasonable to implement a solution that only
covers some of the cases, but I what I am asking is if we know what
percentage of the cases that is. If we are preventing only 1% of
out-of-order deliveries with this, I question whether it is worth the
bother.

IMHO, this improvement is broken by design. We try to fix a
receiver-only issue by a sender side fix.

If the receiver wants the patch series be in a good ordered _for sure_, he
has to switch to a client mail supporting the In-Reply-To chains.


The biggest problem with in-reply-to chains is that they're absolutely
horrible for patch-series of more than five or so messages. The "worst"
one this week was a series of 14 patches, I believe. If any of the
deeper nested patches gets any sort of commentary, it usually eats so
much horizontal screen estate that it becomes hopeless to actually
find anything.

Besides that, most mua's I've worked with list emails in a thread
like this:

First
 +------ second
 |         +------ third
 |         |
 |         +---- reply to second
 |                 +
 |                 |
 |                 + reply to reply to second
 |
 +-- reply to first

etc. etc, but when asked for "next unread message in thread", they
jump to the *deepest* message in the thread first, so you end up
reading the replies to the patches in the wrong order anyway.

For those two reasons, I absolutely loathe deeply nested
in-reply-to chains.

--
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]