From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758910AbZBMJ2l (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:28:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751422AbZBMJ2d (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:28:33 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:2222 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751363AbZBMJ2b (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:28:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:27:37 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Junio C Hamano , Lennart Sorensen , Ingo Oeser , L-K , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: git-send-email Message-ID: <20090213092737.GO5038@1wt.eu> References: <1234451714.10603.22.camel@laptop> <200902121825.35021.ioe-lkml@rameria.de> <20090212192104.GD15809@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <7vmycrf5dv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1234516958.6519.6.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1234516958.6519.6.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:22:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 18:16 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) writes: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > >> No, they are great, if you like to skip over a topic, you are not > > >> interested in at all! > > >> > > >> If you don't like it, just switch off thread in your mailer and > > >> don't force this on everybody else! > > > > > > Actually if (as apparently many people seem to manage to do) you have a > > > single starting email, with all the patches as replies to that first > > > email, it looks a lot better, and is much easier to follow. > > > > > > Seperate threads would be bad. > > > > > > foobar patch 0 (usually a summary/overview) > > > +-foobar patch 1 > > > +-foobar patch 2 > > > +-foobar patch 3 > > > +-foobar patch 4 > > > +-foobar patch 5 > > > > > > is much nicer than > > > > > > foobar patch 0 > > > +-foobar patch 1 > > > +-foobar patch 2 > > > +-foobar patch 3 > > > +-foobar patch 4 > > > +-foobar patch 5 > > > > > > which seems to be what git does itself. > > > > I personally prefer the former, but as you hopefully all found out by now, > > the choice between these two is just the matter of personal taste, and > > there is no clear majority. > > > > The default will not going to change. > > Its a matter of usability, the inf deep chain git does by default > renders the result unusable. Fact is I usually skip over patch series > posted that way, simply because its too much of a bother. > > If you can't be bothered with usability of your project, then so be it. > Maybe all those rants on how unusable git is have a point after all. While your last comment seems a bit excessive to me, I agree with you about the threading problem. I have to turn threads off to read some of these long mails because the subject does not fit in my terminal, and most of the time I only see just something like '[PATCH' which is pretty useless. The former mode (as used by Greg when he posts his huge stable series) is a lot more convenient. Also, if one mail gets dropped for whatever reason in between, the threading is not broken. Regards, Willy