martin f krafft wrote: > 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.
Well, sending a patch at unified diff format is also a convention, but people follows it. It is a very good assumption that a reply patch, without anything like Re:/Fwd: and with a sequencial numbering of xxx/yyy to belong to a patch series. > However, assuming we could identify a patch series, wouldn't it make > sense to automatically create a bundle? Maybe, but someone will need to provide a bundle name. >> 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? I never look at -git source code where this check is done, but, as the source code is available and well written, I think it shouldn't be hard to port it to patchwork. Cheers, Mauro _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
