Re: Cross-referencing the Git mailing list archive with their corresponding commits in `pu`

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> There is a third category, and this one *does* come as a surprise to me.
>> It appears that at least *some* patches' Date: lines are either ignored or
>> overridden or changed on their way from the mailing list into Git's commit
>> history. There was only one commit in that commit range:
>>
>> 3c0cb0c (read_loose_refs(): read refs using resolve_ref_recursively(),
>> 	Michael Haggerty 2017-02-09)
>>
>> This one was committed with an author date "Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:53:52
>> +0100" but it appears that there was no mail sent to the Git mailing list
>
> I think this is this one:
>
>     <ff0b0df6-9aed-9417-d9d4-1234d53f05c3@alum.mit.edu>
>
> Recent "What's cooking" lists the topic this one is part with this
> comment:
>
>  The tip one is newer than the one posted to the list but was sent
>  privately by the author via his GitHub repository.

We didn't have any pull from sub-maintainers during the period you
checked, but when we do, those could also fall into the category.
Even though I see some l10n patches Cc'ed to the list, I won't be
surprised if not everything that is sent to Jiang Xin (i18n/l10n
coordinator) is, for example.  It also is OK for sub-maintainers to
have their own commit to describe or otherwise improve their area
and without sending a patch before doing so if they deem it
appropriate [*1*].

I actually think automation like yours would help another category:
There is a newer version of the series or an entirely new series on
the list, but the project's tree has not picked them up (yet).

I from time to time sweep my inbox in an attempt to find and pick up
leftover bits.  Sometimes the authors remind me by pinging [*2*],
which greatly helps.  But another set of eyeballs that may be
enhanced with a mechanised filter that catches "messages without
corresponding commits", which is the opposite of this "third"
category, would be of great help, too [*3*].


[Footnote]

*1* ... like trivial fixes, for example, at their discretion.  After
    all we entrusted their own area and we should give them the
    flexibility they can exercise with good taste ;-).

*2* e.g. <2f67fc21-92f9-a03e-1b09-a237af6dbc46@alum.mit.edu>

*3* ... even if a mechanised filter alone might strike too many
    false positives.