Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add strprefix() and fix a bug with it

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Krzysztof,

> Date: 2026-11-05 16:21:02+0100
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
[...]
> 
> My mailbox gets 200-300 patches per day (not counting replies), so I
> have no idea how that could be manageable if all versions of some series
> were threaded to itself. Some old thread popping up to the top,
> half-read, deeply nested like 20-deep indentation?
> 
> But even in second workflow, reviewing individual patches via b4 or mutt
> after shazaming (my main workflow of DT) not via inbox, would get huge
> irrelevant thread of past discussions requiring me to look for stuff
> actually for the review. How to find actual patch to review in this huge
> thread? I tried many times, takes much more time than reviewing simply
> current version.

I send patch set revisions in reply to the cover letter of v1, not in
reply to the last revision.  This means that revised patches will be
indented 2 levels deep, not 20+.

That is, this is how they'd look:

		[PATCH v1 00] ...
		├─> [PATCH v1 01] ...
		├─> [PATCH v1 02] ...
		├─> [PATCH v1 03] ...
		├─> [PATCH v2 00] ...
		│ ├─> [PATCH v2 01] ...
		│ ├─> [PATCH v2 02] ...
		│ └─> [PATCH v2 03] ...
		├─> [PATCH v3 00] ...
		│ ├─> [PATCH v3 01] ...
		│ ├─> [PATCH v3 02] ...
		│ └─> [PATCH v3 03] ...
		└─> [PATCH v4 00] ...
		  ├─> [PATCH v4 01] ...
		  ├─> [PATCH v4 02] ...
		  └─> [PATCH v4 03] ...

I jump to new mails with <tab>, and the patches have low indentation.
I have never felt it hard to navigate within mutt(1), FWIW, but YMMV.

Anyway, I can do it just for me, by editing the local mail after
sending, and adding an In-Reply-To header just for me.

> b4 is not so more complex, honestly it's just new interface and after
> learning a few new commands is straightforward and easy. And solves
> successfully, without creating noise or problems to others, all problems
> which you might be trying to solve:

> referencing earlier versions,

Solved with threads.

> easy
> comparing between any version,

Solved with the --range-diff in the cover letter.

> collecting trailers, sending nice
> thank-you letters with commit and tree references etc.

I do these manually, but they're much less work than the two above.

> I believe there should be no excuse for modern maintainer to not use b4
> in the workflow. The same BTW for submitters of anything bigger than
> 3-patch series.

It feels more comfortable to me to use git(1) and mutt(1); YMMV.  :)


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature