Re: messages dropped in the public inbox ?

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> Please see https://public-inbox.org/git/20160817204848.8983-1-sbeller@google.com/
>> and its answers:
>>
>> Thread overview: 4+ messages in thread (expand / mbox.gz / Atom feed / [top])
>> 2016-08-17 20:48 Stefan Beller [this message]
>> 2016-08-17 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
>> 2016-08-17 21:14   ` Stefan Beller
>>      [not found]     ` <20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox>
>> 2016-08-24 16:46       ` Stefan Beller
>>
>> The message id 20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox
>> is not found?
>>
>> When I query the git repository for that message
>> (via a generic `git log --author=Heiko --oneline`) I cannot spot
>> the message.
>>
>> Was it just dropped spuriously?
>
> +Cc: Heiko
>
> I guess it was dropped by vger, first.
>
> If you check https://public-inbox.org/git/20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox/
> and follow the links to marc.info or mail-archive.com,
> it's missing in those places, too.

That makes sense. As I was cc'd or adressed directly as well, I did not notice
it's missing on the mailing list as I got it directly.

I just found out about it when I wanted to reference it somewhere else.

>
> Same with nntp://news.gmane.org/20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox
> (should load in w3m or lynx)
>
> It might've also coincided with vger downtime, so perhaps
> Heiko's server failed to retry.  vger has had quite a few
> failures, recently (or perhaps I'm only paying attention more
> now that I'm mirroring git@vger).

Oh, too bad. Thanks for actually pointing out the failure, i.e.
showing that there is a message that was referenced and not just
silently skipping it!

>
> Based on his other messages and the Message-ID, it looks like he
> used mutt; so it's unlikely to be a problem with HTML (but
> perhaps it was some taboo attachment, but also unlikely).

I don't think so. Here is what I got:
--->8---
Delivered-To: sbeller@google.com
Received: by 10.107.44.72 with SMTP id s69csp335983ios;
        Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.28.135.133 with SMTP id j127mr2593471wmd.9.1471529365942;
        Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de (smtprelay03.ispgateway.de.
[80.67.31.41])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 201si2451262wmb.59.2016.08.18.07.09.25
        for <sbeller@google.com>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Thu, 18 Aug 2016 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.67.31.41 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of hvoigt@hvoigt.net)
client-ip=80.67.31.41;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=neutral (google.com: 80.67.31.41 is neither permitted nor
denied by best guess record for domain of hvoigt@hvoigt.net)
smtp.mailfrom=hvoigt@hvoigt.net
Received: from [84.131.251.138] (helo=sandbox) by
smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>) id 1baO0a-00034n-JV;
Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:09:24 +0200
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:09:23 +0200
From: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, "git@vger.kernel.org"
<git@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>, Fredrik
Gustafsson <iveqy@iveqy.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: change submodule default to check
Message-ID: <20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox>
References: <20160817204848.8983-1-sbeller@google.com>
<xmqqmvkb85sw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
<CAGZ79kbb=oL7b93W-x=dxVh2aBN-H+tg9y5o4RwbepYtijQTXg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kbb=oL7b93W-x=dxVh2aBN-H+tg9y5o4RwbepYtijQTXg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Df-Sender: aHZvaWd0QGh2b2lndC5uZXQ=

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:14:11PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
[...]
> >> Flipping the default to check for submodules is safer
> >> than the current default of ignoring submodules while pushing.
> >
> > That part of the assertion, on the other hand, is justifiable.
>
> ok.

I also think that this is a good reason to flip the default. IMO more
people will be annoyed by not being able to checkout a certain version
if someone forgets to push a submodule then people deliberately pushing
something with a submodule hash that is not on any remote.

At the same time I am wondering whether it makes sense to keep this for
a bigger version change (like 3.0) or so? Since that is were people will
expect such changes. Not sure when 3.0 is planned though.

Cheers Heiko
--->8---

> Anything interesting from looking at the raw message +headers?

If only I had knowledge what is interesting in headers. ;)

Looking at the above, I don't think there is any outstanding
thing why the mailing list would have rejected this mail?

Thanks!
Stefan