sfr at canb.auug.org.au
Wed Feb 10 15:12:12 EST 2010
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:21:03 +1300 martin f krafft <madduck at madduck.net> wrote:
> 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 I could mark the former superseded, but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.
I am pretty sure patchwork was designed to consider a patch sent (even in
reply to another patch) as an independent thing ...
Stephen Rothwell sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Patchwork