Merging patches

[martin f krafft]

also sprach martin f krafft <madduck at madduck.net> [2010.02.10.1617 +1300]:
> If someone replies to a patch thread with a broken mailer, and an
> updated patch is sent without In-Reply-To, Patchwork ends up
> creating two patches for it. I could mark the former superseded, but
> that means that all the discussion would be gone too.

In fact, it seems that Patchwork sometimes just screws up.

http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/001439.html was sent
in direct reply to
http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/2010/001438.html, but
Patchwork still generated http://patchwork.madduck.net/patch/346/
and http://patchwork.madduck.net/patch/347/.

Mbox with the two messages attached.

What's wrong with that?

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
"she is absolutely inadmissible into society. many a woman has a past,
 but I am told that she has at least a dozen, and that they all fit."
                                                        -- oscar wilde
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pw.mbox.gz
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/attachments/20100210/ee3e3602/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/patchwork/attachments/20100210/ee3e3602/attachment.pgp>