On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:25 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 05/09/16 14:19, Russell Currey wrote: > > > > In testing v2 I found a weird issue I didn't find before. > > > > If you send a new series in reply to the cover letter of a previous series, > > it > > appends the patches to the previous series. This is rather confusing as you > > would think any patches sent in reply to a cover letter would belong to that > > series, but they clearly should be treated differently in some cases, as you > > can > > see in the screenshot below: > > > > https://i.imgur.com/8Yi9IjR.png > > Or in reply to patch 1 of the initial series - the one in your > screenshot doesn't have a cover letter.
Yeah, you're right, good catch. > > > > > Maybe use a reset in numbering? This would be harder to parse if both > > series > > had the same number of patches, I'm imagining something like the following: > > > > - [1/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, new series (#1) > > - [2/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, append to #1 > > - [3/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, append to #1 > > - [1/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, new series (#2) > > - [2/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter: > > - see that series #2 doesn't have a 2/3 > > - see that the date of the patch means it's probably for series #2 > > - append to series #2 > > - [3/3] is the same as above. > > This is the sanest approach I think. For each 1/N patch, create a new > series. > _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
