On 25 March 2011 09:01, Jeremy Kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >> I suspect patchwork has got confused because the Ack email arrived >> an hour or so before the patch email (slow mailing list and the >> patch was cc'd to a highly responsive subsystem maintainer :-)). > > Yeah, it'll do that. If patchwork sees an email that doesn't contain a > patch, or that it can't correlate with an existing patch, the email > will be ignored. > > Working-around this would require keeping all 'potential' follow-ups, > which we don't do at the moment. I'm not sure this is a good idea in > general...
Well, you wouldn't have to keep them indefinitely, and you only need to keep emails which have references/in-reply-to pointing to an email you haven't seen yet, so that's not very much data. If you can't trust patchwork to actually retain all the relevant traffic about a patch, I think its utility is significantly reduced. -- PMM _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
