From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EB782018E for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n128so53130674ith.1 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E2Ga2gW5gGQrC0b3NPfhk/d0bdYwqW8DN+g3oE6I/58=; b=MKzVOIxBbxIvzgfzCJZ2VbbBLcomih9yOE5E2v8lx6IDs1l8Izq5YcDRtLtG9vE/6o TENb3d+HOoZmLL9JZlQ9/Bethp/VsbL0E0jQSkfmNQvvZWyNlVN0o1xJQpPNbmjf3rCm 8g0Yor9sG+pYqI42s22az4TrwhIhVgGOewFOuBqAdC2mGtr0+QGFQvvH1SUaCuUs3wkS GcHfQ8yaqIr6G5yul94oIQbU5vFbqXpucjdPtr3wFRdF9P1eybp+m+0Mb7a91+W/IZXS plmFzbiEADS6eIVc0kfN3/hDgGG+V+myJqBdHGPsUXmTRTs3Q1iZe/Q8FjiN7LF87jTP 3Cmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E2Ga2gW5gGQrC0b3NPfhk/d0bdYwqW8DN+g3oE6I/58=; b=AxxyVjowi/5iz24BIti7nBLNFc5HwYefC8r2Y6cDppCm3Jc/uacHGs3aZ7RAQlTeBi /NxUKAR1dtV6g/U84PyJb8IyyRVR86Obh4UPUHar4WsuxFAy5VXLknndhbBC4SnJ0Ism mZVG1EXmkc4cRvnuUivfe28njQS6IovgfBQJwF81VPZTOveTNxUL23htCA36L2NJ/QCg CoxPV2GoU+906JtD+0kZw566gVdzvryoGbCj9k6g7wnLrqODLiA1xwFmECtbOtsLKCwH fxO+K2ufBX8XZjz/4jpENJGnCIaML5R1EX6LVQPuj5rao6EJbrSfhtVXU8vnya6TLNA1 4HAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwP9g9jpfQrrvaf7q8pm3j37f48bgwXoC54pLECoKcDz1P1l8dX8I5moQrJVSQ03vZ7bcMuOWzKalrxAKleN X-Received: by 10.107.144.10 with SMTP id s10mr5769273iod.165.1472067566604; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:39:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.128.66 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:39:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160824182613.GA8578@whir> References: <20160824182613.GA8578@whir> From: Stefan Beller Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:39:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: messages dropped in the public inbox ? To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org, Heiko Voigt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-Id: On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Eric Wong wrote: > Stefan Beller 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: 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 (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 ) id 1baO0a-00034n-JV; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:09:24 +0200 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:09:23 +0200 From: Heiko Voigt To: Stefan Beller Cc: Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" , Jens Lehmann , Fredrik Gustafsson Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: change submodule default to check Message-ID: <20160818140922.GA5925@sandbox> References: <20160817204848.8983-1-sbeller@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 wrote: > > Stefan Beller 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