On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 01:24 +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote: > From: Stephen Finucane <stephen.finuc...@intel.com> > > It is now possible to parse and store series, so do just that. > The parsing at the moment is based on both RFC822 headers and > subject lines. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <stephen.finuc...@intel.com> > Tested-by: Russell Currey <rus...@russell.cc> > ---
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 (this is my test instance so it's not publicly accessible) So it might be tricky to define what *does* deserve a new series in this case, since: - can't use author as some patches might be from a different author - can't use date because what if someone sends patches at 23:59 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. That's probably confusing...but hopefully there's a simple solution. If an automated system was testing series, applying every patch in the series in the image above would not be what you wanted. - Russell _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork