Hi Martin, On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:21:03 +1300 martin f krafft <madd...@madduck.net> wrote: > > also sprach martin f krafft <madd...@madduck.net> [2010.02.10.1617 +1300]: > > If someone replies to a patch thread with a broken mailer, and an > > updated patch is sent without In-Reply-To, Patchwork ends up > > creating two patches for it. I could mark the former superseded, but > > that means that all the discussion would be gone too. > > In fact, it seems that Patchwork sometimes just screws up.
I am pretty sure patchwork was designed to consider a patch sent (even in reply to another patch) as an independent thing ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpoDqTN79lcA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
