On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:23:07 -0800
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I've been biten by this behavior sending the v2 of
> > a patch serie --in-reply-to the cover letter for the v1. The two
> > versions of each patch appear as reply to the original cover letter,
> > it's kind of a mess. I was really expecting the patch serie to appear
> > as a separate subtree in the discussion.
>
> The above is much better description of what issue the patch is trying to
> address; something like that should go to the description.
>
Alright, I'll try mentioning the actual use case too.
> Antonio, I've already queued a few tests that document the established
> behaviour on ao/send-email-irt branch (54aae5e1), so could you rebase your
> patch on it, perhaps with an updated explanation in the log (and in the
> documentation)?
>
Junio, ao/send-email-irt seems to have been merged into origin/next, so
I am rebasing on that. About the tests, I am going to modify one of your
tests instead of adding another one, is that OK? This is a change of the
established behavior after all, so the relative test have to change too,
something along these lines:
diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
index 66e4852..c56787f 100755
--- a/t/t9001-send-email.sh
+++ b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
@@ -324,9 +324,11 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'In-Reply-To without --chain-reply-to' '
--smtp-server="$(pwd)/fake.sendmail" \
$patches $patches $patches \
2>errors &&
- # All the messages are replies to --in-reply-to
+ # The first message is a reply to --in-reply-to
sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt1 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
+ # Second and subsequent messages are replies to the first one
+ sed -n -e "s/^Message-Id: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt1 >expect &&
sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt2 >actual &&
test_cmp expect actual &&
sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt3 >actual &&
Let me just stress out that 3a. as in 54aae5e1 is not well specified
either, that's what all this fuss is about. I notice you didn't comment
about my view of the "independence" of the --in-reply-to setting wrt.
--[no-]chain-reply-to but I guess that falls into the implicit/explicit
debate, so I am not pushing it and just follow your directions about
explicitly relating the two.
> Thanks, both.
>
Regards,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it
PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Attachment:
pgpFwfzoeymaT.pgp
Description: PGP signature