From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2186EC433C1 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54AC61936 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 20:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229769AbhCTUE5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:57 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:60891 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229766AbhCTUEp (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9036D113A98; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=yL8iL+GZwbMu bvOnqsUr1c494nM=; b=fMNJeF7oRPtpoSJ/wNqrrGkKC8SWMmvj0ClrhkntnCDD yIK6brZ7ePIVQl0YPh4/d/S2gvX8hxu4DTn9VT7GWuOv06NPj8LbpWTmojJFT+RI JC9rw8zdAwl0SvJ6xu0eAorFoBoLjw7mlGvY2KPv+Rmy1UYdf243cF+Yz7VSDhU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Ututjs iGPDjjqTNSrr2Q3wogvxb2+FnQxQEppDmTCm95LBfnG6e9mbNuOD47+7dfPB7+in 8QmPg7S8i31f6a5JT7Zarfjysv/QuoUwNoBEI0XnlBcUId/tmC46M+MQWxy5TGG7 BtXQlyRShaBStz36TyXf6Q9QXdOwVWZEmaZpU= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88ED1113A97; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.243.138.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D42A5113A96; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/22] fsck.h: update FSCK_OPTIONS_* for object_name References: <20210306110439.27694-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20210316161738.30254-2-avarab@gmail.com> <87czvuyyk6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:04:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87czvuyyk6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:16:57 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 82A5A400-89B7-11EB-B1B0-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> In other words, would you mind using the `--thread=3Dshallow` option i= n the >> future, for better structuring on the mailing list? > > Not at all, I've set it in my config now. > > I've just been using the default configuration of format-patch > --in-reply-to --cover-letter && send-email *.patch all this time. > ... > So I wonder if I'm using some different process from the norm, or if > most everyone else is just looking carefully at Message-ID/In-Reply-To > norms before sending... Interesting. I always let send-email assign the message IDs and haven't used --thread=3D option at all. In other words, my format-patch output files have no message IDs in them or In-reply-to header fields. That in turn means that in-reply-to is decided not when format-patch is run, but when send-email sends things out, it gives them the ids and structures the in-reply-to chains. I guess we have too much flexibility in our tooling X-<.