{"thread":{"id":"21554","subject":"[RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","startedAt":"2009-11-10T04:08:47Z","lastAt":"2009-11-10T19:58:25Z","messageCount":10,"participants":["Ingo Molnar","Jay Soffian","Junio C Hamano","Peter Zijlstra","Michael Witten"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"127203","messageId":"20091110040847.GC29454@elte.hu","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"1257789555.4108.348.camel@laptop","subject":"[RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Ingo Molnar","fromEmail":"mingo@elte.hu","sentAt":"2009-11-10T04:08:47Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T04:08:47Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mingo@elte.hu","avatar":null},"body":"\n(moved from lkml to the Git list)\n\n* Peter Zijlstra wrote:\n\n> > Mailer: \n> > git-send-email 1.6.5.2\n> \n> Please teach your git-send-email thing to use --no-chain-reply-to.\n\nabout half of every patch series that gets sent to me on lkml is \nunreadable in my email client due to the default threading that \ngit-send-email does. It looks like this:\n\n28685 r T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) [PATCH v5 0/7] Adding general performance benchmarki\n28686 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) +->[PATCH v5 1/7] Adding new directory and header fo\n28687 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 368) | +->[PATCH v5 2/7] sched-messaging.c: benchmark for\n28688 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 148) | | +->[PATCH v5 3/7] sched-pipe.c: benchmark for pi\n28689 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 149) | | | +->[PATCH v5 4/7] builtin-bench.c: General fra\n28690 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 24) | | | | +->[PATCH v5 5/7] Modifying builtin.h for ne\n28691 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 25) | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 6/7] Modyfing perf.c for subc\n28692 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 30) | | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 7/7] Modyfing Makefile to b\n\nand with 10 or more patches it's an absolute pain as threading depth \nincreases. Furthermore, the subject lines are not aligned vertically, \nmaking it very hard to see the general shortlog-alike structure of the \nseries, at a glance. Plus i dont even _see_ the title over a certain \ndepth, as i run out of screen real estate.\n\nSo ... the question would be ... could git-send-email flip its default \nplease, via the patch below? Am i missing something subtle about why \nthis default was chosen?\n\n\tIngo\n\nSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar \n\ndiff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\nindex a0279de..ff00940 100755\n--- a/git-send-email.perl\n+++ b/git-send-email.perl\n@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ my (@suppress_cc);\n \n my %config_bool_settings = (\n \"thread\" => [\\$thread, 1],\n- \"chainreplyto\" => [\\$chain_reply_to, 1],\n+ \"chainreplyto\" => [\\$chain_reply_to, 0],\n \"suppressfrom\" => [\\$suppress_from, undef],\n \"signedoffbycc\" => [\\$signed_off_by_cc, undef],\n \"signedoffcc\" => [\\$signed_off_by_cc, undef], # Deprecated\n"},{"id":"127214","messageId":"76718490911092112v4d1e7761ue98def756ed0d93b@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"20091110040847.GC29454@elte.hu","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Jay Soffian","fromEmail":"jaysoffian@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-11-10T05:12:05Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T05:12:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jaysoffian@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/155970?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:\n> So ... the question would be ... could git-send-email flip its default\n\nThis is already in next for 1.7.0. See 41fe87f.\n\n>From Junio's What's Cooking messages:\n\n* jc/1.7.0-send-email-no-thread-default (2009-08-22) 1 commit\n (merged to 'next' on 2009-08-22 at 5106de8)\n\n> Am i missing something subtle about why this default was chosen?\n\nI'm not sure it was chosen so much as it was just the way the cookie crumbled.\n\nj.\n"},{"id":"127215","messageId":"20091110052211.GK7897@elte.hu","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"76718490911092112v4d1e7761ue98def756ed0d93b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Ingo Molnar","fromEmail":"mingo@elte.hu","sentAt":"2009-11-10T05:22:11Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T05:22:11Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mingo@elte.hu","avatar":null},"body":"\n* Jay Soffian wrote:\n\n> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:\n> > So ... the question would be ... could git-send-email flip its default\n> \n> This is already in next for 1.7.0. See 41fe87f.\n> \n> >From Junio's What's Cooking messages:\n> \n> * jc/1.7.0-send-email-no-thread-default (2009-08-22) 1 commit\n> (merged to 'next' on 2009-08-22 at 5106de8)\n\nAh, awesome!\n\n+1 for putting it into a .1.6.x stable branch too. (Unless there's a \ncase where the recursive threading is actually useful and is being \nrelied on.)\n\n\tIngo\n"},{"id":"127216","messageId":"7v4op3gd6f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"20091110040847.GC29454@elte.hu","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-11-10T05:29:44Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T05:29:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Ingo Molnar writes:\n\n> (moved from lkml to the Git list)\n>\n> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:\n>\n>> > Mailer: \n>> > git-send-email 1.6.5.2\n>> \n>> Please teach your git-send-email thing to use --no-chain-reply-to.\n> ...\n> So ... the question would be ... could git-send-email flip its default \n> please, via the patch below? Am i missing something subtle about why \n> this default was chosen?\n\nI do not think there was any conscious decision made when the\nchain-reply-to was added. It was done and it got stuck.\n\nI think the _only_ argument anybody _could_ make (and I won't be making\nit, as I'd rather wish we had no-chain-reply-to the default from day one)\nagainst the change of default is that it is a change [*1*].\n\nLkml already had two rather heated discussion in the past,\n\nAfter the first round, I said we'd change the default to no-chain-reply-to\nin release 1.6.3 unless somebody makes a convincing argument why the\ndefault should not change, back around the time we were preparing for\n1.6.2 (February 2009).\n\n http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/109790\n\nNobody complained.\n\nThen I forgot to make such a declaration in the release notes to 1.6.3,\nand no such declaration appeard in later release notes, either.\n\nBut nobody complained (nor reminded me).\n\nThe second round of the discussion was in August 2009. This time I did\nsomething to prevent me from forgetting in the future.\n\n http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/879975/focus=880938\n\nThis patch is queued in 'next', scheduled to graduate to 'master' for the\n1.7.0 release.\n\n\n[Footnote]\n\n*1* To spell it out... The people who are in the \"hate chain-reply-to\nvery much\" camp would have already done their own configuration to get the\nbehaviour they want by now, so changing the default would not help them\nmuch, while potentially hurting \"love chain-reply-to\" people who have been\ncontent because they got what they wanted without setting any\nconfiguration.\n"},{"id":"127217","messageId":"7vpr7qgbjm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"20091110052211.GK7897@elte.hu","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-11-10T06:05:01Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T06:05:01Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Ingo Molnar writes:\n\n> +1 for putting it into a .1.6.x stable branch too. (Unless there's a \n> case where the recursive threading is actually useful and is being \n> relied on.)\n\nAs I wrote in the LKML message when that patch was made (please see my\nother message for the URL to the archive), my assessment of this issue is\nthat it would have been the right thing to do if we were doing this now\nwithout any existing users, but nobody really cares deeply enough either\nway to warrant fast tracking the schedule we promised back in August.\n\nIt would take a bit stronger nudging than \"unless there is a case against\nchanging the default because it is being relied on\", as I know that people\nwho rely on would not speak up for a long time. We already saw that it\ntook 6 month between Feb 2009 to Aug 2009 for people who wanted to change\nthe default to notice and complain that the change they were promised did\nnot happen ;-).\n\nSome people will complain when we switch the default to no-chain-reply-to\nin the 1.7.0 release. I am willing to take flak from them and defend the\nchange.\n\nBut I am not convinced that this deserves to be fast-tracked to the 1.6.x\nseries. We gave them until 1.7.0 and I have no good answer to \"why didn't\nyou wait as you promised?\" I'd rather avoid telling them that \"that is\nhow kernel people wanted it, and sorry, their wish trumps yours.\" if I\ncan.\n"},{"id":"127218","messageId":"20091110071927.GB11942@elte.hu","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"7v4op3gd6f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Ingo Molnar","fromEmail":"mingo@elte.hu","sentAt":"2009-11-10T07:19:27Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T07:19:27Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mingo@elte.hu","avatar":null},"body":"\n* Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> [Footnote]\n> \n> *1* To spell it out... The people who are in the \"hate chain-reply-to \n> very much\" camp would have already done their own configuration to get \n> the behaviour they want by now, so changing the default would not help \n> them much, while potentially hurting \"love chain-reply-to\" people who \n> have been content because they got what they wanted without setting \n> any configuration.\n\nStupid question: i researched the Git mailing list archive (and read the \nlink you provided) and found no arguments (at all) in favor of the \nnested chaining. Are you aware of any?\n\nAnd i dont 'hate' it - i am just the one suffering from it as a \nmaintainer. _I_ can certainly fix my scripts as you suggest above, but \nthat is not my problem: my problem are the many people sending \nfirst-time Git based patch series to me (and there's quite a few of \nthem) always, in every single case, get it wrong.\n\nThe ones not using Git (using Quilt for example) and sending me series \nget it right in pretty much every case.\n\nSo i can see it when developers start using Git to submit patches - in \neach and every case - the discussion threading is all messed up ;-)\n\nThese people dont 'do their own configuration' - they are mostly newbies \nor developrs new to Git workflows. And the first reaction they get from \ntheir upstream maintainer counterpart is some grumbling about the \nthreading. Not good, me thinks ;-)\n\n\tIngo\n"},{"id":"127219","messageId":"1257838352.21088.5.camel@twins","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"20091110040847.GC29454@elte.hu","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Peter Zijlstra","fromEmail":"peterz@infradead.org","sentAt":"2009-11-10T07:32:32Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T07:32:32Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"peterz@infradead.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 05:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:\n> (moved from lkml to the Git list)\n> \n> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:\n> \n> > > Mailer: \n> > > git-send-email 1.6.5.2\n> > \n> > Please teach your git-send-email thing to use --no-chain-reply-to.\n> \n> about half of every patch series that gets sent to me on lkml is \n> unreadable in my email client due to the default threading that \n> git-send-email does. It looks like this:\n> \n> 28685 r T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) [PATCH v5 0/7] Adding general performance benchmarki\n> 28686 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) +->[PATCH v5 1/7] Adding new directory and header fo\n> 28687 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 368) | +->[PATCH v5 2/7] sched-messaging.c: benchmark for\n> 28688 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 148) | | +->[PATCH v5 3/7] sched-pipe.c: benchmark for pi\n> 28689 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 149) | | | +->[PATCH v5 4/7] builtin-bench.c: General fra\n> 28690 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 24) | | | | +->[PATCH v5 5/7] Modifying builtin.h for ne\n> 28691 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 25) | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 6/7] Modyfing perf.c for subc\n> 28692 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 30) | | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 7/7] Modyfing Makefile to b\n\nDo what I do and flame the sender and have them repost.\n\nI simply won't even attempt to read crap send like that.\n"},{"id":"127262","messageId":"20091110182942.GA15677@elte.hu","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"20091110071927.GB11942@elte.hu","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Ingo Molnar","fromEmail":"mingo@elte.hu","sentAt":"2009-11-10T18:29:42Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T18:29:42Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mingo@elte.hu","avatar":null},"body":"\n* Ingo Molnar wrote:\n\n> * Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > [Footnote]\n> > \n> > *1* To spell it out... The people who are in the \"hate \n> > chain-reply-to very much\" camp would have already done their own \n> > configuration to get the behaviour they want by now, so changing the \n> > default would not help them much, while potentially hurting \"love \n> > chain-reply-to\" people who have been content because they got what \n> > they wanted without setting any configuration.\n> \n> Stupid question: i researched the Git mailing list archive (and read \n> the link you provided) and found no arguments (at all) in favor of the \n> nested chaining. Are you aware of any?\n\nBtw., dont get me wrong - i'm perfectly happy with the fix in 1.7.0. You \nare also right that behavioral changes dont belong into stable releases.\n\n( I'm just seeing this problem through the biased eyes of someone who is\n affected by it, so i naturally want to have the benefit of the change\n ASAP - without fully perceiving the risks of the change.)\n\nThanks,\n\n\tIngo\n"},{"id":"127264","messageId":"b4087cc50911101146j7f773613j74d6d6716a82ebd4@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"1257838352.21088.5.camel@twins","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-11-10T19:46:50Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T19:46:50Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"[Sorry about the repeat, Peter]\n\nOn Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:\n> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 05:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:\n>> about half of every patch series that gets sent to me on lkml is\n>> unreadable in my email client due to the default threading that\n>> git-send-email does. It looks like this:\n>>\n>> 28685 r T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  (  31) [PATCH v5 0/7] Adding general performance benchmarki\n>> 28686   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  (  31) +->[PATCH v5 1/7] Adding new directory and header fo\n>> 28687   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  ( 368) | +->[PATCH v5 2/7] sched-messaging.c: benchmark for\n>> 28688   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  ( 148) | | +->[PATCH v5 3/7] sched-pipe.c: benchmark for pi\n>> 28689   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  ( 149) | | | +->[PATCH v5 4/7] builtin-bench.c: General fra\n>> 28690   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  (  24) | | | | +->[PATCH v5 5/7] Modifying builtin.h for ne\n>> 28691   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  (  25) | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 6/7] Modyfing perf.c for subc\n>> 28692   T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake  (  30) | | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 7/7] Modyfing Makefile to b\n>\n> Do what I do and flame the sender and have them repost.\n>\n> I simply won't even attempt to read crap send like that.\n\nWhat, precisely, is unreadable or crappy about that? I suppose the\nchaining was introduced to keep some order to the patches.\n"},{"id":"127265","messageId":"1257883105.4108.465.camel@laptop","threadId":"21554","inReplyTo":"b4087cc50911101146j7f773613j74d6d6716a82ebd4@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default","fromName":"Peter Zijlstra","fromEmail":"peterz@infradead.org","sentAt":"2009-11-10T19:58:25Z","receivedAt":"2009-11-10T19:58:25Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"peterz@infradead.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:46 -0600, Michael Witten wrote:\n> [Sorry about the repeat, Peter]\n> \n> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:\n> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 05:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:\n> >> about half of every patch series that gets sent to me on lkml is\n> >> unreadable in my email client due to the default threading that\n> >> git-send-email does. It looks like this:\n> >>\n> >> 28685 r T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) [PATCH v5 0/7] Adding general performance benchmarki\n> >> 28686 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 31) +->[PATCH v5 1/7] Adding new directory and header fo\n> >> 28687 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 368) | +->[PATCH v5 2/7] sched-messaging.c: benchmark for\n> >> 28688 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 148) | | +->[PATCH v5 3/7] sched-pipe.c: benchmark for pi\n> >> 28689 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 149) | | | +->[PATCH v5 4/7] builtin-bench.c: General fra\n> >> 28690 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 24) | | | | +->[PATCH v5 5/7] Modifying builtin.h for ne\n> >> 28691 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 25) | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 6/7] Modyfing perf.c for subc\n> >> 28692 T Nov 05 Hitoshi Mitake ( 30) | | | | | | +->[PATCH v5 7/7] Modyfing Makefile to b\n> >\n> > Do what I do and flame the sender and have them repost.\n> >\n> > I simply won't even attempt to read crap send like that.\n> \n> What, precisely, is unreadable or crappy about that? I suppose the\n> chaining was introduced to keep some order to the patches.\n\nAs can be seen in the example above, the subjects become useless at\nabout the 4th patch.\n\nThe reply to the first patch together with sort on subject or date also\nkeeps the patches in order, since consecutive patches have increasing\ntimestamps and properly increasing numbers in them. It also keeps the\nsubjects readable.\n\nPeople want me to read their patches, if they make it hard on me, I\nsimply wont spend my time on their stuff and do something else instead.\n"}]}