From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: git-send-mail in sh Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:59:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4386EE7B.7070604@op5.se> References: <4386DD45.6030308@op5.se> <20051125101209.GA8868@puritan.petwork> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 25 11:59:19 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EfbIQ-0001ph-To for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:59:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751442AbVKYK7J (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:59:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751443AbVKYK7J (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:59:09 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:20125 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbVKYK7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:59:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.19] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF476BD03; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:59:07 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Nikolai Weibull In-Reply-To: <20051125101209.GA8868@puritan.petwork> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nikolai Weibull wrote: >>It's worse than the perl version because; >>1. It doesn't thread the patch-series (which I personally prefer anyway >>since it's easier to follow a thread on a particular patch that way). > > > Not so great. Why is it so much more difficult to have one more level > of nesting? It's annoying, but it's a lot less annoying than having 19 > separate threads that are all, in fact, related to each other. > I am of the opinion that nesting is bad because some patches get a few comments while some others get them in droves. It's easy to miss those with few if they're all nested. As for finding them, all the threads should show up next to each other since there's practically no delay between sending them. As for implementation, I don't think most "mail" programs have the functionality necessary to do so (dunno though since I didn't investigate). > >>2. The patches sent within the same second arrive in random order. > > > Perhaps adding a 'sleep 1' would help? (The delay may be unacceptable > to some people, though.) > I thought about that, but decided against it. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231