You can use --in-reply-to to send an email as a reply. The standard way for a mail client to figure out threads is by looking at In-Reply-To and References headers. Some mail clients screw this up, which means that some mail clients (not necessarily the same ones that screw them up) also look at the Subject header and thread based on similar or identical subjects.
The mailing list itself isn't involved in this at all (except that it could screw it up if it messed with email headers, but I don't think that it does). The gmail web interface sets headers properly for threading, but treats messages with identical subjects as the same thread, with occasionally weird results. I guess that's what you mean below. (If you view gmail over IMAP, as I most often do, then you get whatever threading behavior your IMAP client implements.) This is a fairly complicated subject, see http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html for a good source of information. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:51:20AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > Thanks Ben, > > Want to ask, could I send patch as a reply to existing thread in [dev]? > > I always do "git send-email" to dev@openvswitch.org, when the title is the > same the [dev] > automatically figures that out and reply to the previous thread. But when > I changed the title, > it seems to me, that [dev] will treat it as a new mail. > > Thanks, > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:01:14AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > > This commit fixes a place in bridge.c where smap_destroy() is not > > > always called after smap_init(). Though there is no memory leak > > > now, it is necessary to fix it and prevent memory leak in the > > > future when smap_init() is modified to allocate dynamic memory. > > > > > > Reported-by: Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> > > > > It looks good to me, but: when you revise a patch within a series, > > please do it one of two ways: > > > > * Post the new version of the patch as a reply to the previous > > version. > > > > * Repost the whole series. > > > > The reason is that, when there's a v2 of one patch, but no v2 of other > > patches, then it gets really confusing for reviewers. But when you do > > either of the above, it's obvious. > > > > So would you mind reposting this 2-patch series? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben. > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
