From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.90_1) id 1lIQuV-00043c-IX for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:59:35 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lIQuT-00043V-Df for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:59:33 -0500 Received: from mx3.molgen.mpg.de ([141.14.17.11]:34495 helo=mx1.molgen.mpg.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lIQuR-0004r7-5L for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:59:33 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ip5f5aed05.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.90.237.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pmenzel) by mx.molgen.mpg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65DB72064791E; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 07:59:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: Threading of patch series (was: [PATCH v6 00/14] error: Do compile-time format string checking on grub>) To: Glenn Washburn References: <20210305162701.4cdquaj4wiwndvd3@tomti.i.net-space.pl> <20210305171558.2c485f55@crass-HP-ZBook-15-G2> Cc: grub-devel@gnu.org, Daniel Kiper From: Paul Menzel Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 07:59:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210305171558.2c485f55@crass-HP-ZBook-15-G2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.14.17.11; envelope-from=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de; helo=mx1.molgen.mpg.de X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 06:59:33 -0000 Dear Glenn, Am 06.03.21 um 00:15 schrieb Glenn Washburn: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 17:27:01 +0100 Daniel Kiper wrote: […] >> By the way, my I ask you once again to send each patch series as >> separate thread. Now you are attaching all patch sets to one cover >> letter which is confusing. Please stop doing that. > > How do you pull patch series from the mailing list? I'm curious if this > is messing with that. Also what email client do you use? > > You are correct that I'm attaching all new versions of the patch series > to one cover letter, but each patch series also has its own cover > letter. So I don't consider the cover letter that is the root of the > thread to be the cover letter for the new patch series. > > I can't find our prior correspondence. I recall saying that the > patchset series in question had been not done in a less than ideal way > because I had start by replying to the cover letter of the prior > patchset and then switched to replying to a particular patchset cover > letter. This was because with experience I determined that attaching to > the thread of the next version of a patchset to the cover letter of the > first version of the patchset looked much nicer in my browser. I > also recall saying that I'd do this in the future to see if it worked > well doing it properly from the start. > > My goal is to keep all versions of a patchset together in a client > with tree view of threads (eg. my mail client claws-mail). This makes > it easy to go back to a prior patchset to look at comments. I also > wanted to meet this goal in an aesthetically pleasing way. The first > attempt which attached a new version of a patchset to its priors cover > letter did not meet this because it created a deep tree for patchsets > with lots of revisions. However, attaching each new patchset to the > cover letter of the first patchset, keeps thread tree to a minimum. It > also makes it to collapse only certain patchset versions (aside from > the first). Also, since I have threads sorted by thread date, I see > patchsets ordered from most recent to least recent, which it how I like > to order all my emails. > > The current case does not strictly adhere to these rules because I'm > taking v4 as the initial patchset, which perhaps may be the source of > some confusion. Other than that I think its worked out nicely. > > So I'm curious if this is causing some issue with tooling. And I'm > curious what exactly is causing confusion? In my browser its fairly > obvious that the root of the thread is the cover letter for v4 of the > patch series and that the cover letters of attached patch series are > different, noted by a different version number. At least here, Mozilla Thunderbird 78.8.0 is only able to collapse the top thread and not sub threads. The mailing list archive does not seem to care [1], though that might be because the v4 patch set cover letter is in a different month. Anyway, as *displaying* of threading is not defined and different between user agents, maybe it’s better to not rely on that. Kind regards, Paul [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2021-03/threads.html