Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yes. It exists in all of the patches except 0000-cover-letter.patch. > ...but when the mail gets actually sent the cover letter and last > patch (0006 in the case I reported) end up sharing the same Change ID. > With older versions of git send-email the cover letter would get an > auto-generated Message-Id. Yeah, I think the patch I sent in the thread should help; I'd appreciate it if you folks can test and verify. >> I suspect that >> is the root cause of the problem; if 000[1-6]-*.patch already has >> their own Message-ID: because --thread is used when running >> git-format-patch, they would also have In-Reply-To: and References:, >> but there is no way for them to reference 0000-cover-letter.patch >> (because format-patch did not get a chance to generate Message-ID to >> it), is there? > > The patches were generated with git-format-patch but the Message-ID > was added by patman [1]. The Message-ID encodes the local Change-Id > which can make it easier to associate one version of the same patch > with another (same reason gerrit uses Change-Id) [2]. There is no > Change-Id associated with the cover letter so patman doesn't bother > adding one there and has always just let it be auto-generated. > We > could certainly change patman to make up a Message-Id for the cover > letter, but there is no real need. This is a tangent, as I think the earlier patch should fix the regression, but wouldn't a recipient of such a series have a hard time to locate and group the patches in the same series with the cover letter, without having In-Reply-To: or References: that links the later message back to the initial message (i.e. cover letter)? Assigning a Message-ID to the cover, and referencing it from the patches via In-Reply-To:, is what is commonly done, I think, for that kind of threading. Thanks.
