From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-format-patch: Make the second and subsequent mails replies to the first Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:45:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20060715074532.GF13776@pasky.or.cz> References: <20060710162920.GR20191@harddisk-recovery.com> <1152556878.8890.45.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> <7vwtal9lu1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1152897407.5177.8.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> <7v4pxkoxjp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1152904829.5177.19.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> <7vwtagnfsk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Josh Triplett , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 15 09:45:40 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1eqH-00036R-6n for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:45:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946009AbWGOHpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:45:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946008AbWGOHpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:45:34 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:56043 "EHLO machine.or.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946009AbWGOHpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:45:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 23813 invoked by uid 2001); 15 Jul 2006 09:45:32 +0200 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vwtagnfsk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dear diary, on Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:32:27PM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano said that... > Josh Triplett writes: > > > ..., but you > > suggested that you didn't mind having threading as the default. > > Did I? ... then that was either a mistake or miscommunication. > > I do mind changing the default output. I do not mind threading > as the default ONLY IF user asks for output with these extra > headers. What's the big deal? It's not like we didn't change those things in the past if it doesn't horribly break everything and the new behaviour is clearly more sensible. It would be good to know what the general policy on this is nowadays. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise. Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam