Hi Peff, On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:39:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:49:22AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > infrequent contributors. And there are a few reasons to prefer GGG: > > > > > > > > 1. submitGit seems to still have a few rough edges. E.g., it doesn't > > > > munge timestamps to help threaded mail readers handled out-of-order > > > > delivery. > > > > > > Hmph, I had an impression that the recent "why aren't these sorted" > > > topics were via GGG, not submitGit, though. > > > > We did have one case a few months ago, but I think it was since fixed. > > Whereas it cannot be fixed for submitGit without major re-architecting, > > because the mails go out through Amazon SES, which writes its own > > timestamp. > > > > I could be wrong about GGG being fixed though. I haven't noticed the > > problem lately, but we definitely had a submitGit-related one a few > > weeks ago. > > Hmm. I guess it is still an issue in GGG. This thread has identical > timestamps on patches 1 and 2 (and my server received them out of order > by 2 seconds, so mutt orders them wrong): > > https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.163.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I do still think GGG has a more feasible path forward on this particular > bug, though. Indeed. And it is a bug^Wfeature of GMail, I guess, that it knows better and ignores the Date: header of the mbox fed to it. The only workaround I can think of is to introduce ugly one-second-sleeps. I will do that if it proves necessary, but I do have a problem right now because my only GitGitGadget reviewer (Stolee) is kinda busy with other things for the time being. Ciao, Dscho
