Jay Soffian wrote:
> I think this change may be okay, but I think to go with it the
> cover-letter and all the patches should have a "References:" header
> with the message-id given by --in-reply-to.
That's a completely separate issue. I'm only proposing to change
what is formatted as a reply to what, the In-Reply-To and References
formatting is handled by the existing code. That being said...
> RFC 2822 says:
>
> The "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields are used when creating a
> reply to a message. They hold the message identifier of the original
> message and the message identifiers of other messages (for example,
> in the case of a reply to a message which was itself a reply). The
> "In-Reply-To:" field may be used to identify the message (or
> messages) to which the new message is a reply, while the
> "References:" field may be used to identify a "thread" of
> conversation.
The References formatting can't satisfy the following requirement, two
paragraphs further down in the RFC,
The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's
"References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's
"Message-ID:" field (if any).
because it doesn't have access to the mail being replied to. It
merely sets References to the same as In-Reply-To.
(Note that I'm just guessing this from behaviour I can observe, I
haven't actually read the code for that part.)
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
