On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 10/21/2015 08:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >Can you *please* start a new thread with each posting? > > > >This is absolutely unmanageable. > > I've been explicitly threading the multiple patch series on purpose > due to this text in "git help send-email": > > --in-reply-to=<identifier> > Make the first mail (or all the mails with --no-thread) appear > as a reply to the given Message-Id, which avoids breaking > threads to provide a new patch series. The second and subsequent > emails will be sent as replies according to the > --[no]-chain-reply-to setting. > > So for example when --thread and --no-chain-reply-to are > specified, the second and subsequent patches will be replies to > the first one like in the illustration below where [PATCH v2 > 0/3] is in reply to [PATCH 0/2]: > > [PATCH 0/2] Here is what I did... > [PATCH 1/2] Clean up and tests > [PATCH 2/2] Implementation > [PATCH v2 0/3] Here is a reroll > [PATCH v2 1/3] Clean up > [PATCH v2 2/3] New tests > [PATCH v2 3/3] Implementation > > It sounds like this is exactly the behavior you are objecting > to. It's all one to me because I am not seeing these emails > come up in some hugely nested fashion, but just viewing the > responses that I haven't yet triaged away. I personally (and I think this is the general LKML behaviour) use in-reply-to when I post a single patch that is a fix for a bug, or a small enhancement, discussed on some thread. It works well as it fits the conversation inline. But for anything that requires significant changes, namely a patchset, and that includes a new version of such patchset, it's usually better to create a new thread. Otherwise the thread becomes an infinite mess and it eventually expands further the mail client columns. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
