On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<ava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add a --send-delay option with a corresponding sendemail.smtpSendDelay
> configuration variable. When set to e.g. 2, this causes send-email to
> sleep 2 seconds before sending the next E-Mail. We'll only sleep
> between sends, not before the first send, or after the last.
>
> This option has two uses. Firstly, to be able to Ctrl+C a long send
> with "all" if you have a change of heart. Secondly, as a hack in some
> mail setups to, with a sufficiently high delay, force the receiving
> client to sort the E-Mails correctly.
>
> Some popular E-Mail clients completely ignore the "Date" header, which
> format-patch is careful to set such that the patches will be displayed
> in order, and instead sort by the time the E-mail was received.
>
> Google's GMail is a good example of such a client. It ostensibly sorts
> by some approximation of received time (although not by any "Received"
> header). It's more usual than not to see patches showing out of order
> in GMail. To take a few examples of orders seen on patches on the Git
> mailing list:
>
> 1 -> 3 -> 4 -> 2 -> 8 -> 7 (completion by Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy)
> 2 -> 0 -> 1 -> 3 (pack search by Derrick Stolee)
> 3 -> 2 -> 1 (fast-import by Jameson Miller)
> 2 -> 3 -> 1 -> 5 -> 4 -> 6 (diff-highlight by Jeff King)
>
> The reason to add the new "X-Mailer-Send-Delay" header is to make it
> easy to tell what the imposed delay was, if any. This allows for
> gathering some data on how the transfer of E-Mails with & without this
> option behaves. This may not be workable without really long delays,
> see [1] and [2].
>
> The reason for why the getopt format is "send-delay=s" instead of
> "send-delay=d" is because we're doing manual validation of the value
> we get passed, which getopt would corrupt in cases of e.g. float
> values before we could show a sensible error message.
>
> 1.
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180325210132.ge74...@genre.crustytoothpaste.net/
> 2. https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqpo3rehe4....@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> I submitted this back in March hoping it would solve mail ordering
> problems, but the other motive I had for this is that I'm paranoid
> that I'm sending out bad E-Mails, and tend to "y" to each one because
> "a" is too fast.'
Heh. GMail seems to have added an Undo button in their UI, which
would be the same feature as this one. (Hit Ctrl+C in time to "undo"
the sending command)
I have been bitten quite a few times by using "a" as I had old
series still laying around, such that it would send a new series and parts
of the old series (or when you changed subjects and resend another
iteration of a series, you may end up with two "patch 1"s).
So I learned to be careful before pressing "a" on sending.
Maybe the underlying issue is that you really only want to send a series
and not "all" as send-email asks for.
So maybe that dialog could learn a [s]eries switch, which would
check either filenames to count up, or if the base that is recorded
(base-commit for first and prerequisite-patch-id for followups)
is consistent.
Send this email? ([y]es|[n]o|[e]dit|[q]uit|[a]ll|[s]eries):
Another note:
I personally never use no/quit, but Ctrl+C for both cases.
This is also different than the feature of 5453b83bdf9 (send-email
--batch-size to work around some SMTP server limit, 2017-05-21)
which introduced sendemail.smtpReloginDelay, which would offer the
same functionality when the batch-size is set to 1. (Although this would
keep you connected to the server as well as add the X-Mailer-Send-Delay
header, which is nothing from the official email RFC, but your own invention?)
Having sorted mails in GMail would be nice!
Thanks,
Stefan
