Hi Peff, On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:23:11PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Yeah, they're out of order in mutt's threaded display. And the > > > back-dating means there's a much higher chance of them getting blocked > > > as spam (e.g., some of the dates are from weeks ago). > > > > > > git-send-email uses the current time minus an offset, and then > > > monotonically increases for each patch: > > > > > > $time = time - scalar $#files; > > > ... > > > my $date = format_2822_time($time++); > > > > > > which seems to work pretty well in practice. It does mean the original > > > dates are lost. The committer date is not interesting at all (there will > > > be a new committer via "git am" anyway). The original author date is > > > potentially of interest, but could be included as an in-body header. > > > AFAIK send-email doesn't have such an option, though, and people are > > > fine with date-of-sending becoming the new author date. > > > > > > +cc Johannes as the GitGitGadget author > > > > Thanks for dumping even more work on my shoulders. > > Wow. Here's my perspective on what I wrote. > > Somebody pointed out an issue in the tool. I tried to add an additional > data point (how other clients react, and that I've seen spam-related > problems). And I tried to point to an existing solution in another tool, > in case that was helpful. I thought cc-ing you would be a favor, since > you obviously have an interest in the tool, and it is easy to miss > discussions buried deep in a thread. > > So no, I didn't write the patch for you. But I tried to contribute > positively to the process. And I got yelled at for it. That makes me a > lot less inclined to try to help in the future. > > > Next time, I will ask you to jump in, instead of putting the onus on me. > > > > I mean, seriously, what is this? "You can use *any* mail program to work > > with the Git mailing list, *any* mailer. As long as it is mutt. And as > > long as you spend hours and hours on tooling that oh BTW nobody else can > > use." > > The irony here is that I actually _did_ look at the GitGitGadget > repository, and thought about making a patch to be helpful. But as it is > written in a language I'm not all that familiar with, using tools that I > don't normally use, I didn't want to spend hours and hours in order to > make what was probably going to be a one-line patch in software that I > don't use myself. I understand that. The web is not based on shell scripting, so there is no good way to implement a bot on GitHub using Bash scripts. Ciao, Dscho
