On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 00:49 +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:58 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Please see below two series: > > > > Series #1: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=210330 > > Series #2: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=210336 > > > > The following patch > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20201027141740.18336-7-bmeng...@gmail.com/ > > > > should really be put in series #2, not series #1. > > > > Not sure why this bug happens, as you can see clearly from the > > message > > id, the patch should belong to series #2. > > Ping? Sorry, patchwork is maintained by two hugely busy people without much official support from our employers or any other funding. We will look into it when we get a moment. Kind regards, Daniel +1 I did have a chance to look at this this afternoon. What you're seeing is unfortunately expected behavior, based on how the series detection algorithm currently works. We attempt to find a series for a new patch first by checking the email threading headers (In-Reply-To, Reference) [1] and then by falling back to searching by other markers (version, number of patches, author) [2]. The latter is necessary to handle unthreaded emails but it is prone to false positives since it is by design quite a broad search for matches. To minimise these false positives, we timebox the lookup [3]. Because your references don't match up, you've fallen into the fallback check, and because both series appear to Patchwork to be the same "version" (version 1, since they don't have series version markers), have the same number of patches (9), and the same author (you), Patchwork is identifying them as the same thing. Crucially, both emails were sent within 10 minutes of each other, which means they're passing the timebox check. There isn't a whole lot we can do to handle this without breaking series detection for unthreaded series. We could possibly only do the fallback check if there are no threading headers but there are likely to be more unintended consequences to this. You could ask an admin to move the patches manually but it's probably not worth the trouble. It may seem silly, but simply waiting 20 minutes before resending a series would likely be the easiest way to avoid this. Sorry I don't have a better answer. Parsing arbitrary email and turning it into structured data is hard :( Cheers, Stephen [1] https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/blob/bdb049c7939b/patchwork/parser.py#L204-L263 [2] https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/blob/bdb049c7939b/patchwork/parser.py#L266-L300 [3] https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/blob/bdb049c7939b/patchwork/parser.py#L43 _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
