From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-send-email: threaded view issue with Thunderbird Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:51:26 -0700 Message-ID: <7v64gibjox.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060824081228.69110.qmail@web25808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 24 10:51:38 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 1GGAw1-0003K5-Cc for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:51:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750905AbWHXIv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:51:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750931AbWHXIv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:51:27 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:58032 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750905AbWHXIv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:51:27 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060824085126.LPDL12581.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:51:26 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.5.203]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id DkrR1V0284Noztg0000000 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:51:26 -0400 To: moreau francis In-Reply-To: <20060824081228.69110.qmail@web25808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (moreau francis's message of "Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:12:28 +0000 (GMT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: moreau francis writes: > Hi, > > Sometimes, actually most of the time, git-send-email _seems_ to not > work properly with Thunderbird: for example if I send a patchset made > up by 4 single patchs, then Thunderbird show me this patchset 'broken' > that is [PATCH 2/4] is not shown as a reply to [PATCH 1/4]. > ... > The strange thing is that all email headers are correct. Then this is a wrong list perhaps ;-). > I recently notice that someone has sent a patchset using > git-send-email and I can see it 'broken' as well. The subject of the > first email of the set is > > [PATCH 0/7] C cleanup series, mostly nasty shadowing > > Does anybody have an idea on what's going wrong ? I see that 7+1 series as "broken"; #1 is not a reply to #0. All others are reply to the previous one which is fine: Subject: [PATCH 0/7] C cleanup series, mostly nasty shadowing Message-ID: <200608231238.10963.madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 1/7] avoid to use error that shadows the funct Message-ID: <11563295562072-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: 200608231238.10963.madcoder@debian.org Subject: [PATCH 2/7] git_dir holds pointers to local strings, Message-ID: <11563295562422-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <11563295562072-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 3/7] missing 'static' keywords Message-ID: <1156329556788-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <11563295562422-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 4/7] remove ugly shadowing of loop indexes in s Message-ID: <11563295573215-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <1156329556788-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 5/7] missing #define DEBUG 0 that made the prep Message-ID: <11563295573035-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <11563295573215-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 6/7] use name[len] in switch directly, Message-ID: <1156329557424-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <11563295573035-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Subject: [PATCH 7/7] n is in fact unused, and is later shadowed. Message-ID: <1156329557613-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <1156329557424-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org> Because #1 has a bogus In-Reply-To field, #0 and #1 would be shown at the same level, but #2-7 would be staggered below #1.