Re: [PATCH v3] git-send-email.perl: make initial In-Reply-To apply only to first email

From: Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it>
Date: Nov 10, 2010, 11:45 UTC
Message-ID: <20101110124522.0dff4076.ospite@studenti.unina.it>
In-Reply-To: <7vy692kx8k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:23:07 -0800 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> 
> > I've been biten by this behavior sending the v2 of
> > a patch serie --in-reply-to the cover letter for the v1. The two
> > versions of each patch appear as reply to the original cover letter,
> > it's kind of a mess. I was really expecting the patch serie to appear
> > as a separate subtree in the discussion.
> 
> The above is much better description of what issue the patch is trying to
> address; something like that should go to the description.
>

Alright, I'll try mentioning the actual use case too.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Antonio, I've already queued a few tests that document the established
> behaviour on ao/send-email-irt branch (54aae5e1), so could you rebase your
> patch on it, perhaps with an updated explanation in the log (and in the
> documentation)?
>

Junio, ao/send-email-irt seems to have been merged into origin/next, so I am rebasing on that. About the tests, I am going to modify one of your tests instead of adding another one, is that OK? This is a change of the established behavior after all, so the relative test have to change too, something along these lines:

diff --git a/t/t9001-send-email.sh b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
index 66e4852..c56787f 100755
--- a/t/t9001-send-email.sh
+++ b/t/t9001-send-email.sh
@@ -324,9 +324,11 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ 'In-Reply-To without --chain-reply-to' '
                --smtp-server="$(pwd)/fake.sendmail" \
                $patches $patches $patches \
                2>errors &&
-       # All the messages are replies to --in-reply-to
+       # The first message is a reply to --in-reply-to
        sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt1 >actual &&
        test_cmp expect actual &&
+        # Second and subsequent messages are replies to the first one
+       sed -n -e "s/^Message-Id: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt1 >expect &&
        sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt2 >actual &&
        test_cmp expect actual &&
        sed -n -e "s/^In-Reply-To: *\(.*\)/\1/p" msgtxt3 >actual &&


Let me just stress out that 3a. as in 54aae5e1 is not well specified
either, that's what all this fuss is about. I notice you didn't comment
about my view of the "independence" of the --in-reply-to setting wrt.
--[no-]chain-reply-to but I guess that falls into the implicit/explicit
debate, so I am not pushing it and just follow your directions about
explicitly relating the two.

> Thanks, both.
> 

Regards,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?