Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In other words, would you mind using the `--thread=shallow` option in the >> future, for better structuring on the mailing list? > > Not at all, I've set it in my config now. > > I've just been using the default configuration of format-patch > --in-reply-to --cover-letter && send-email *.patch all this time. > ... > So I wonder if I'm using some different process from the norm, or if > most everyone else is just looking carefully at Message-ID/In-Reply-To > norms before sending... Interesting. I always let send-email assign the message IDs and haven't used --thread=<any> option at all. In other words, my format-patch output files have no message IDs in them or In-reply-to header fields. That in turn means that in-reply-to is decided not when format-patch is run, but when send-email sends things out, it gives them the ids and structures the in-reply-to chains. I guess we have too much flexibility in our tooling X-<.
