Re: [PATCH 00/16] Consolidate reachability logic

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:23:11PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > > Yeah, they're out of order in mutt's threaded display. And the
> > > back-dating means there's a much higher chance of them getting blocked
> > > as spam (e.g., some of the dates are from weeks ago).
> > > 
> > > git-send-email uses the current time minus an offset, and then
> > > monotonically increases for each patch:
> > > 
> > >   $time = time - scalar $#files;
> > >   ...
> > >   my $date = format_2822_time($time++);
> > > 
> > > which seems to work pretty well in practice. It does mean the original
> > > dates are lost. The committer date is not interesting at all (there will
> > > be a new committer via "git am" anyway). The original author date is
> > > potentially of interest, but could be included as an in-body header.
> > > AFAIK send-email doesn't have such an option, though, and people are
> > > fine with date-of-sending becoming the new author date.
> > > 
> > > +cc Johannes as the GitGitGadget author
> > 
> > Thanks for dumping even more work on my shoulders.
> 
> Wow. Here's my perspective on what I wrote.
> 
> Somebody pointed out an issue in the tool. I tried to add an additional
> data point (how other clients react, and that I've seen spam-related
> problems). And I tried to point to an existing solution in another tool,
> in case that was helpful. I thought cc-ing you would be a favor, since
> you obviously have an interest in the tool, and it is easy to miss
> discussions buried deep in a thread.
> 
> So no, I didn't write the patch for you. But I tried to contribute
> positively to the process. And I got yelled at for it. That makes me a
> lot less inclined to try to help in the future.
> 
> > Next time, I will ask you to jump in, instead of putting the onus on me.
> >
> > I mean, seriously, what is this? "You can use *any* mail program to work
> > with the Git mailing list, *any* mailer. As long as it is mutt. And as
> > long as you spend hours and hours on tooling that oh BTW nobody else can
> > use."
> 
> The irony here is that I actually _did_ look at the GitGitGadget
> repository, and thought about making a patch to be helpful. But as it is
> written in a language I'm not all that familiar with, using tools that I
> don't normally use, I didn't want to spend hours and hours in order to
> make what was probably going to be a one-line patch in software that I
> don't use myself.