Re: [RFC/PATCH] point pull requesters to Git Git Gadget
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:31:21 +0100 (STD)
- From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] point pull requesters to Git Git Gadget
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:39:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:49:22AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > infrequent contributors. And there are a few reasons to prefer GGG:
> > > >
> > > > 1. submitGit seems to still have a few rough edges. E.g., it doesn't
> > > > munge timestamps to help threaded mail readers handled out-of-order
> > > > delivery.
> > >
> > > Hmph, I had an impression that the recent "why aren't these sorted"
> > > topics were via GGG, not submitGit, though.
> > We did have one case a few months ago, but I think it was since fixed.
> > Whereas it cannot be fixed for submitGit without major re-architecting,
> > because the mails go out through Amazon SES, which writes its own
> > timestamp.
> > I could be wrong about GGG being fixed though. I haven't noticed the
> > problem lately, but we definitely had a submitGit-related one a few
> > weeks ago.
> Hmm. I guess it is still an issue in GGG. This thread has identical
> timestamps on patches 1 and 2 (and my server received them out of order
> by 2 seconds, so mutt orders them wrong):
> I do still think GGG has a more feasible path forward on this particular
> bug, though.
Indeed. And it is a bug^Wfeature of GMail, I guess, that it knows better
and ignores the Date: header of the mbox fed to it.
The only workaround I can think of is to introduce ugly one-second-sleeps.
I will do that if it proves necessary, but I do have a problem right now
because my only GitGitGadget reviewer (Stolee) is kinda busy with other
things for the time being.