Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Perhaps a follow-up patch then? > 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. I think "References:" field can be shortened, and although IIRC it is recommended to leave first ancestor, two separators, and three last ancestors in shortened "References:" header, it would be better if patches had both '--in-reply-to' message id AND cover letter id in "References:" header. That would make for safer threading... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
