Bastien Guerry <[email protected]> writes: > IIUC, your suggestion is that, if the attached patch is well formatted > and has [PATCH] in its suject then it should be promoted as a patch?
I've done that now, https://tracker.orgmode.org/next/ shows the new output with more patches. On the other hand, I've tighten the rule so that a patch either has a [PATCH] or a well-formatted patch (with git format-patch). So inline diffs and quick git diff > x.patch with no explicit [PATCH] in the subject are not promoted as patch by BARK, they are just code for comment in a thread. See https://tracker.orgmode.org/next/bark-manual.html > I agree that "false negatives are worse than false positives" and that > explains the previous behavior, catching as much patches as possible. > But it also makes sense to leave room for quick patches that are still > visible within bug/request reports, but not promoted as "standalone" > patches: let's find the right trade-off here. I'm waiting for Jacob and Ihor to comment on https://tracker.orgmode.org/next/ but I think it's more useful. Fewer false positives, and perhaps more importantly, it's easier to remember what is detected as a patch. Thanks! -- Bastien
