From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Sebrecht Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/6] Re: send-email: Add --delay for separating emails Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 00:08:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20090407220854.GA12908@vidovic> References: <1239139522-24118-1-git-send-email-mfwitten@gmail.com> <20090407215143.GA18144@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michael Witten , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 08 00:11:22 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LrJV5-0000Nm-8q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:10:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757332AbZDGWJA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:09:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757199AbZDGWJA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:09:00 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.185]:43582 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756901AbZDGWI7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:08:59 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so861974muf.1 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=U1Ba50cZfnuPW8WhyAm+kXQIrAaEOcIVy/rZmDPC4Cg=; b=rM//wSNMbYfGLjZBDjArGK65TIwMYDxfnjpA4GdBu3NvmqFeq8GQLOBvXC1x12ZIBe Bqwl8QR0yuPaLUpJq03Rsmc6JPnvPxsSPHaAj+ESB47FNaQUqqRQivp800Xr2IuT1Un5 JtYpn1F16LroRUT5dB5fG3euNa6zxTikCE6Dc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=X71YCagijSiWpXUY/PsmK8iR5lJlwRYtcQNzd4jz/0M7egKE4qwWDx55OiPZcZG9dV KqbzdA20a5kBIcKEdC4Ucoa9Txf8pL41iN2CRXys4rSej7WgtIyd2mXyZr3d1s+2zeda qLy5/BYAzneTnwLdd31lvqbi+BO9i1Rt+DTyc= Received: by 10.103.49.12 with SMTP id b12mr186164muk.81.1239142138091; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from @ (91-165-135-177.rev.libertysurf.net [91.165.135.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y6sm10164725mug.57.2009.04.07.15.08.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090407215143.GA18144@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:51:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > When sending a patch series, the emails often arrive at the final > > destination out of order; though these emails should be chained > > via the In-Reply-To headers, some mail-viewing systems display > > by order of arrival instead. > > > > The --delay option provides a means for specifying that there > > should be a certain number of seconds of delay between sending > > emails, so that the arrival order can be controlled better. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Witten > I think it may still be reasonable to implement a solution that only > covers some of the cases, but I what I am asking is if we know what > percentage of the cases that is. If we are preventing only 1% of > out-of-order deliveries with this, I question whether it is worth the > bother. IMHO, this improvement is broken by design. We try to fix a receiver-only issue by a sender side fix. If the receiver wants the patch series be in a good ordered _for sure_, he has to switch to a client mail supporting the In-Reply-To chains. -- Nicolas Sebrecht