On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:21:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > > Grr, looks like I accidentally reused a 'git send-email' from shell > > history which had a '--in-reply-to' in it. Please ignore and sorry about > > that. I've just resent a new email. > > No worries! The --in-reply-to wasn't actually a problem, since b4 > generally will do the right thing (and sometimes humans prefer the > in-reply-to since they can more easily see the patch that it is > replacing/obsoleting). > > b4 can sometimes get confused when a patch series gets split, and both > parts of the patch series are in a reply-to mail thread to the > original patch series, since if it can't use the -vn+1 hueristic or > the "subject line has stayed the same but has a newer date" hueristic, > it falls back to "latest patch in the mail thread". So if there are > two "valid" patches or patch series in an e-mail thread, b4 -c > (--check-newer-revisions) can get confused. But even in that case, > that it's more a minor annoyance than anything else. > > So in the future, don't feel that you need to resend a patch if > there's an incorrect/older --in-reply-to; it's not a big deal. Great, I haven't yet included b4 in my workflow so, to be honest, I didn't really thought about that tool being confused. What really made me resend the patch was that I used the *wrong message-ID in the "--in-reply-to"! And that thread already had a v2 patch, which would could easily confuse humans. Hopefully, b4 won't be confused by that either. Cheers, -- Luís
