[PATCH v2 3/6] parser: Add series parsing

[Russell Currey]

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:25 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 05/09/16 14:19, Russell Currey wrote:
> > 
> > In testing v2 I found a weird issue I didn't find before.
> > 
> > If you send a new series in reply to the cover letter of a previous series,
> > it
> > appends the patches to the previous series.  This is rather confusing as you
> > would think any patches sent in reply to a cover letter would belong to that
> > series, but they clearly should be treated differently in some cases, as you
> > can
> > see in the screenshot below:
> > 
> > https://i.imgur.com/8Yi9IjR.png
> 
> Or in reply to patch 1 of the initial series - the one in your 
> screenshot doesn't have a cover letter.

Yeah, you're right, good catch.

> 
> > 
> > Maybe use a reset in numbering?  This would be harder to parse if both
> > series
> > had the same number of patches, I'm imagining something like the following:
> > 
> > - [1/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, new series (#1)
> > - [2/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, append to #1
> > - [3/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, append to #1
> > - [1/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter, new series (#2)
> > - [2/3] patch sent in reply to cover letter:
> > 	- see that series #2 doesn't have a 2/3
> > 	- see that the date of the patch means it's probably for series #2
> > 	- append to series #2
> > - [3/3] is the same as above.
> 
> This is the sanest approach I think. For each 1/N patch, create a new 
> series.
>