Hi Martin, > In fact, it seems that Patchwork sometimes just screws up. > > http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/001439.html was sent > in direct reply to > http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/001438.html, but > Patchwork still generated http://patchwork.madduck.net/patch/346/ > and http://patchwork.madduck.net/patch/347/. > > Mbox with the two messages attached. > > What's wrong with that?
Nothing. Patchwork will *always* create a new patch (rather than appending to an existing one) when it finds a patch in a mail. Otherwise, the maintainer will miss patches that are hidden within other patches. >From your earlier mail: > Is it possible to merge patches instead? I don't think bundles are > what I want, I just want to merge two patches that do the same > thing, not two related patches. I'd like to add 'relationships' between patches, but this is not a trivial thing to do. A follow-up patch may be: * A replacement for the original patch * An addition to the original patch * In the same series as the original patch * Completely unrelated to the original patch So detecting this relation automatically is kinda difficult, based only on the threading info. Cheers, Jeremy PS - I've been away and so haven't reviewed your contributions just yet. Thanks though, I'll take a look at them this weekend. _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
