Dear Peter, In message <1269032821.7363.27.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote: > > I personally think that looking at a "deep threaded" patch series with > lots of responses is much harder to grasp than the "shallow threaded". > As a basic example: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/109790
Thanks for the link - I was not aware of this discussion. > I would guess that the majority of other users prefer the "shallow > threaded" style too. I can only guess that, too. But I know my own preferences :-) > I'm pretty sure in the --no-chain-reply-to case, git makes sure the > email dates increment properly, and no 2 are the same. Thus any sane > email client should order them properly when using shallow threading. IIRC git-send-email will indeed make sure to have at least second increments. > I believe the default behavior of git has also been changed to > --no-chain-reply-to for what its worth. The fact that patch order can > be determined by both timestamp and patch title (assuming proper > generation) seems sufficient to me to use the --no-chain-reply-to > option. Well, as the default behavior has been changed, it seems I'm overruled anyway, and there is no need to take additional action. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. - R. A. Heinlein _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
