also sprach Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@redhat.com> [2010.02.10.2344 +1300]: > > So detecting this relation automatically is kinda difficult, > > based only on the threading info. > > If the follow-up patch has the in-reply-to, you can use the patch > sequence number to identify two unrelated patches on the same > series (btw, it would be great to store the patch sequence number > on a series and consider it when ordering patches). Also, if the > in-reply-to were generated against a "patch 0", all the patches on > the series will refer to the same message that weren't stored. It > shouldn't be hard to catch this.
I don't think it's wise to rely on the series numbering in the subject, which is simply a convention and not really a standard. However, assuming we could identify a patch series, wouldn't it make sense to automatically create a bundle? > For a replacement patch, you may try to use an algorithm like what > -git does: get only the diff and compare the previous and the new > version. If they are very close, you may consider the reply as > a replacement. How does Git do this? -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "if ever somethin' don't feel right to you, remember what pancho said to the cisco kid... `let's win, before we are dancing at the end of a rope, without music.'" -- sailor spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
_______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
