Re: [PATCH v4 01/22] fsck.h: update FSCK_OPTIONS_* for object_name

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2021, 20:04 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqr1k9k2w7.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <87czvuyyk6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> In other words, would you mind using the `--thread=shallow` option in the
>> future, for better structuring on the mailing list?
>
> Not at all, I've set it in my config now.
>
> I've just been using the default configuration of format-patch
> --in-reply-to --cover-letter && send-email *.patch all this time.
> ...
> So I wonder if I'm using some different process from the norm, or if
> most everyone else is just looking carefully at Message-ID/In-Reply-To
> norms before sending...

Interesting. I always let send-email assign the message IDs and haven't used --thread=<any> option at all. In other words, my format-patch output files have no message IDs in them or In-reply-to header fields. That in turn means that in-reply-to is decided not when format-patch is run, but when send-email sends things out, it gives them the ids and structures the in-reply-to chains.

I guess we have too much flexibility in our tooling X-<.