Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> There is a third category, and this one *does* come as a surprise to me.
>> It appears that at least *some* patches' Date: lines are either ignored or
>> overridden or changed on their way from the mailing list into Git's commit
>> history. There was only one commit in that commit range:
>>
>> 3c0cb0c (read_loose_refs(): read refs using resolve_ref_recursively(),
>> Michael Haggerty 2017-02-09)
>>
>> This one was committed with an author date "Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:53:52
>> +0100" but it appears that there was no mail sent to the Git mailing list
>
> I think this is this one:
>
> <[email protected]>
>
> Recent "What's cooking" lists the topic this one is part with this
> comment:
>
> The tip one is newer than the one posted to the list but was sent
> privately by the author via his GitHub repository.
We didn't have any pull from sub-maintainers during the period you
checked, but when we do, those could also fall into the category.
Even though I see some l10n patches Cc'ed to the list, I won't be
surprised if not everything that is sent to Jiang Xin (i18n/l10n
coordinator) is, for example. It also is OK for sub-maintainers to
have their own commit to describe or otherwise improve their area
and without sending a patch before doing so if they deem it
appropriate [*1*].
I actually think automation like yours would help another category:
There is a newer version of the series or an entirely new series on
the list, but the project's tree has not picked them up (yet).
I from time to time sweep my inbox in an attempt to find and pick up
leftover bits. Sometimes the authors remind me by pinging [*2*],
which greatly helps. But another set of eyeballs that may be
enhanced with a mechanised filter that catches "messages without
corresponding commits", which is the opposite of this "third"
category, would be of great help, too [*3*].
[Footnote]
*1* ... like trivial fixes, for example, at their discretion. After
all we entrusted their own area and we should give them the
flexibility they can exercise with good taste ;-).
*2* e.g. <[email protected]>
*3* ... even if a mechanised filter alone might strike too many
false positives.
