From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE24671AB6 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id a124so277836603ioe.2 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:51:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dgeGumGqWVMP1dJmliKcgShSuTlSwGF0woR9zBl/+qM=; b=Th92Ks/YBYhbJk58fSHyIocLg6NmlmJvhtAov2R5iMQ28OfRd5FOpinlpuvGIhYxBu gxtAszVKP0lvHKJG9AhJN3pLGIlNnFRhifbE4cQWI1eOC1sl9v+8hrXRnkuzg4ygStxf aD3UmxS+Qo9ofNMhtCcz/g/fH+aWcagyrYo/fpHkYEhDH1yajtYlhXJ+nXP+OcmuC2Qc vq7zunUoOmHKu/qWTwDbZZpqsVvFvHVTymkmgokEux1MoEF0oS+DKwIED9RI8gBiHuBQ F1sjMiLA+sIBZlOwiY3jRpSfXX8XJdShS+z8Opjd6qogTbLftgsm337pitjJ+0fcm1PQ W2Zw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dgeGumGqWVMP1dJmliKcgShSuTlSwGF0woR9zBl/+qM=; b=bJRkJYjNeO3fWnfRxBPeuBoZWGR9QOuxZLe7mXiUkxTL8tm2ZD72Mawd3wKX2bxtGg 6lKt47txUKRxP8xE2ljZzMjSq902frLY2rRdGo9WHGM5aewD+dNGqr3I0ohwIbYdLjdK lUFHR5Bf23o3N9dIuW6VkiUZvMOUG/IyzBSo9rm8fn38cIq/erXGkE7ktevXuB7eojj7 glUczj5vxD/ULA6cdaoMqSJVgW4O/2STmOIA4apU5XIMiuVIfcpHPfguPmy4JXpKqYrz PwcRNVVTcfzz17wJurhwxIjAlr81DhsIhVgcjbZ16vXfzHuMTICJxmeJN6q7vihVzlK1 k7+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01gYgNDmzoUaYwzFmN9j7mUX1bvyOR0re1nvr9Gvc16u4Uvj5V1koR9dvi0SAacG3vw X-Received: by 10.107.131.195 with SMTP id n64mr23257049ioi.161.1480409471648; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8EEDB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.238.219]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h17sm554532ith.17.2016.11.29.00.51.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:51:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1480409468.6873.232.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Jose Lamego Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:51:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1480105843-14729-1-git-send-email-jose.a.lamego@linux.intel.com> <1480350180-9496-1-git-send-email-jose.a.lamego@linux.intel.com> <1480362425.6873.209.camel@intel.com> <967933e7-9f2e-a960-4699-e4e8f2d39e68@linux.intel.com> <1480368843.6873.215.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scripts.send-pull-request: Avoid multiple chain headers X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:51:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 16:35 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > > On 11/28/2016 03:34 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 14:28 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > >> Agree. Please provide feedback about below comments and I will submit a > >> v3 patch. > >> > >> On 11/28/2016 01:47 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 10:23 -0600, Jose Lamego wrote: > >> More than 1 "In-Reply-To" and "References" message headers are in > >> violation of rfc2822 [1] and may cause that some email-related > >> applications do not point to the appropriate root message in a > >> conversation/series. > > > > Fixing that makes sense. Just add it as reason and the "why" part is > > covered. > > > >>> And I don't understand why this proposed change has the described > >>> effect. Does changing the threading parameters change the output of "git > >>> send-email" and thus indirectly the mail headers of the following > >>> patches? > > > > The "how" part still isn't clear to me. Perhaps I'm just dumb, but would > > you bear with me and explain a bit more how changing the sending of the > > cover letter affects sending of the patches? I've tried out your proposed change with bash -x ../poky/scripts/send-pull-request --to=patrick.ohly@gmx.de -p pull-11827 where pull-11827 is my recent bitbake submission. The resulting emails are still broken because that one line that you modify isn't event used. It's under "if [ $AUTO_CL -eq 1 ]" and I am not using the -a option that enables that behavior. Even when I use -a, the result is still broken. The root cause of the problem is that both create-pull-request and send-pull-request allow git to insert In-Reply-To headers. "git send-email --help" explicitly warns about that: It is up to the user to ensure that no In-Reply-To header already exists when git send-email is asked to add it (especially note that git format-patch can be configured to do the threading itself). Failure to do so may not produce the expected result in the recipient’s MUA. > What I'm doing > here is to include no reference to any root message at the first call, > then including a reference at the second call to the very first message > in the chain, which is either the cover letter or the patch #1. No, that doesn't work. Whether the first call uses --no-thread or --no-chain-reply-to has no effect whatsoever, because when "git send-email" only sends a single email, it doesn't add headers, and the second call was left unmodified in your patch. The right fix (tested successfully here) is to use --no-thread in the second call which sends the sequence of patches. I'll send my change for review separately. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.