From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: how to force a commit date matching info from a mbox ? Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20090124023547.GA12311@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <7vwscm1nic.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vljt26fp9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <46d6db660901221441q60eb90bdge601a7a250c3a247@mail.gmail.com> <20090123094529.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <20090123172646.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <7vtz7qxsxc.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090123222906.GC11328@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090124005225.GA9864@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Nanako Shiraishi , git list , Christian MICHON To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 24 03:37:27 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LQYOf-0002P1-Hz for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:37:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753811AbZAXCfw (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752108AbZAXCfv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:51 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:35913 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751996AbZAXCfv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 13379 invoked by uid 107); 24 Jan 2009 02:35:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:56 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 02:43:47AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I think that is not a new problem. Quite a few patches are "how about > > this" patches in the middle of a thread, and leave the old subject. > > IMHO, that is a failing of the tool in not tracking common practice, not > > the other way around. > > You know exactly what "fixing the tool" would mean. Yes, I know. I think Pasky's tool is a clever hack, but I never expected it to be comprehensive in its results. At the GitTogether, we discussed some interesting ideas for tracking the mailing list and showing a more patch-oriented view, but those would be a lot of work, and I am not volunteering to do it right now. What I meant by my comment was that I am not too concerned with tweaking my workflow to help Pasky's tool. -Peff