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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 77954C7D615 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11882474A for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 20:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="S23Q0j9n" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728531AbfLMRwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:52:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57534 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726404AbfLMRwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:52:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6D71842E; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:52:22 -0500 (EST) (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; s=sasl; bh=KzYMlzmabGGvOkCCKulunKkLr4U=; b=S23Q0j 9nvhlcVTYbe+Yupl+lVpCi0c1+fm+iB+zn04udTDc3+wc6rIfr/TBH4elq5tMseC GB/8CYvgKTBJOwiLOTUbUi/Jcift93SFSBOFUBD8K5oAFG8IoXKclcQLX4PyZvYI 6p0WCoXEMuFSqxfP3cb3Etcw2jlHeyotQHNDQ= 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; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NxNfKHsn276P8X4cz+9zZaVnElw2DJhQ wUirQ4fDU3R3V6eT2ISWgl2VfsEv1kE4neyJOxQiC4U/RT+oimjficyfVwGi7ekJ BFs4YxYWbGBlIOFf545mYAboOxQCDWsfdgutEPufNwQe74Slbk4tAKSEHXaYoc/9 lnmPWi7f4E8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F531842B; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:52:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C62418429; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:52:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Denton Liu , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Gmail munges dates? References: <20191213015753.GA14249@generichostname> <20191213054227.GA76445@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:52:20 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20191213054227.GA76445@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:42:27 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 504AEFFE-1DD1-11EA-9854-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> 2. Do we want to introduce a --in-body-date option or something to >> format-patch which would include an in-body Date:, similar to the >> in-body From:? (Also, while we're at it, maybe we could include an >> --in-body-from to force that to happen since that's been a feature that >> was requested in the past[2]) > > I doubt I'd use it myself, but I wouldn't be opposed to an in-body-date > option. You'd perhaps want to define some heuristics to avoid > uninteresting noise. If your patch is from 10 minutes ago, and you are > just now sending it in, adding the extra date header is mostly just > clutter. So perhaps you'd want it to kick in when the date is more than > N time units or something. I do not have a fundamental objection to the --in-body-date option, either, although I do not want to see it used when sending patches to this list. As long as it is a command-line per-invocation option, I do not think you'd need any "uninteresting noise filtering" logic. A configuration variable to always do so would cause a huge headache to keep the behaviour sensible when sending one's own patches, and would require such filtering, I would think. Thanks.