{"thread":{"id":"13881","subject":"'git format-patch' on older commits, and mailinglist","startedAt":"2008-06-10T10:09:34Z","lastAt":"2008-06-10T22:37:40Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Marius Storm-Olsen","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"79332","messageId":"484E52DE.1070100@trolltech.com","threadId":"13881","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"'git format-patch' on older commits, and mailinglist","fromName":"Marius Storm-Olsen","fromEmail":"marius@trolltech.com","sentAt":"2008-06-10T10:09:34Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-10T10:09:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"marius@trolltech.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/a40071d8f651862c6ab10bd7996f0ad84d94f06c0399de9e3fa4f06beb390a71?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi,\n\nRecently, I sent out patches which were fixed up with --amend on older \ncommits. When I sent them out, the patches contained\n     Date: <more than 2 days old datestamp>\nin the headers. Now, sending these mails is fine, and mail clients \ngenerally handles it perfectly fine. However, after doing this I got \nan email from postmaster@vger.kernel.org, basically telling me to not \ndo this, since they get a lot of bounces where the return is marked with\n     Diagnostic Code: smtp; 550 (4.5 DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 Date: is 48 to \n96 hours before Received: date)\n\nThis is understandable. The question is, do we fix the tools to handle \nthis, so that emails are always generated with now() date, and the \ncommit content contains a tag for the original commit; or do we simply \nsay, always send patches to the mailing list with a current timestamp?\n\nMaybe my workflow is incorrect too. I don't mind pointers on this.\n\nI guess rebasing before generating the patch series would have fixed \nthis, but I really didn't need to. I simply reset HEAD~2, fixed with \n--amend, then cherry-picked the other on top again; then created the \npatch series.\n\n-- \n.marius\n- simply wondering what others on the git mailinglist do..\n\n"},{"id":"79396","messageId":"7vfxrkdih7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"13881","inReplyTo":"484E52DE.1070100@trolltech.com","subject":"Re: 'git format-patch' on older commits, and mailinglist","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2008-06-10T22:37:40Z","receivedAt":"2008-06-10T22:37:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> writes:\n\n> Recently, I sent out patches which were fixed up with --amend on older\n> commits. When I sent them out, the patches contained\n>     Date: <more than 2 days old datestamp>\n> in the headers. Now, sending these mails is fine, and mail clients\n> generally handles it perfectly fine. However, after doing this I got\n> an email from postmaster@vger.kernel.org, basically telling me to not\n> do this, since they get a lot of bounces where the return is marked\n> with\n>     Diagnostic Code: smtp; 550 (4.5 DATE_IN_PAST_48_96 Date: is 48 to\n> 96 hours before Received: date)\n>\n> This is understandable. The question is, do we fix the tools to handle\n> this, so that emails are always generated with now() date, and the\n> commit content contains a tag for the original commit; or do we simply\n> say, always send patches to the mailing list with a current timestamp?\n\nI think the right solution would be for send-email to move Date: to the\nbeginning of the body part, just like it adds an extra From: there when\nthe sender is different from the author, and not lie about the mail\ntransmission date.\n\nThen we won't lose the authorship date information in the resulting commit\nand will still keep the mailpath happy.\n"}]}