From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] tilegx network driver: initial support Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:47:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4FD1135E.1050502@tilera.com> References: <4FCFA312.4020505@tilera.com> <20120606.115440.1245419453265419850.davem@davemloft.net> <201206072031.q57KV0NG029301@farm-0023.internal.tilera.com> <20120607.133900.1764130639940088009.davem@davemloft.net> <4FD11292.10700@tilera.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FD11292.10700@tilera.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 6/7/2012 4:44 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 6/7/2012 4:39 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Chris Metcalf >> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:42:03 -0400 >> >>> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:42:03 -0400 >> You did not commit this file on April 6th. >> >> Please don't use the date emitted by the GIT tools, just >> let the email use the natural correct date which is the >> one at the time you send the email out. >> >> Otherwise your patch gets misordered as automated tools like >> patchwork think this file should go all the way at the back >> of the patch queue because of it's old date relative to >> other pending patches. > Yes, when I use "git rebase" to merge changes into the earlier patch, this > is the behavior I see. I don't know if there's some way to tell git to > take the date on the later change instead when I "squash" them. Or if, > perhaps, there is some other workflow I should be using. It does seem like > the git history should reflect the latest time. > > The issue of the date on the email is separate. I tend to use "git > format-patch" to start with, munge up the headers to jam in some > "In-Reply-To" and "References" lines, manually update the "Date:", then > feed it to "sendmail -t". Perhaps there's a different workflow I should be > using there, too. (I tried deleting the "Date", but the one time I tried > that I ended up with some surprisingly bogus date in the email that hit > LKML, so I've been avoiding that approach.) > > I'll resend the patch without a Date: line and see how it ends up this time. Well, I see where the sendmail "Date:" weirdness was coming from; for some reason "git format-patch" was emitting a first line like this: "From 4d76049b3a48f1b32aed1eeb17b4d3a2cb1b1ff6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001", and sendmail was helpfully pulling the "Date:" line from there. Deleting that line as well does the right thing, as I see from the third version of this patch on LKML. Why git is doing this is a good question. Sorry for the spam, but hopefully that will avoid the issue in the future. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com