On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 16:34, Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/20/2011 04:28 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer rejected the series. It would be hard to fix. Let's see if we can live with the rule "patch series must be sent in order".
You cannot rely on that. git send-email of a patch series pushes the emails very fast out and with MX server clusters you run into race conditions.
I thought the Date: field was set by the client, so server races shouldn't matter.
Sorry, missed that you use that and not the order you receive it.
That's not always reliable: say you commit locally patches [1-2/3] on day D and patch [3/3] on day D+1 P3 - baz - D+1 P2 - bar - D P1 - foo - D
For whatever reason, before submission, you decide patch [3/3] should be the first one, so you use "git rebase" do to that: P3 - bar - D P2 - foo - D P1 - baz - D+1
and you git-send the mails.
So, you should always use the numbering specified by the author IMHO
If I run into messages with identical dates, I could sort first by date, then by patch number within the series.
Frédéric