[PATCH 01/10] cmd: Use CSTR_* instead of hardcoded values as result of CompareStringW
frederic.delanoy at gmail.com
Sat Aug 20 10:38:34 CDT 2011
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 16:34, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/20/2011 04:28 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2011 05:06 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>>>> Hmm. You sent 10/10 before 1/10. My patch series recognizer
>>>> rejected the series. It would be hard to fix. Let's see if we can
>>>> live with the rule "patch series must be sent in order".
>>> You cannot rely on that. git send-email of a patch series pushes the
>>> emails very fast out and with MX server clusters you run into race
>> I thought the Date: field was set by the client, so server
>> races shouldn't matter.
> Sorry, missed that you use that and not the order you receive it.
That's not always reliable: say you commit locally patches [1-2/3] on
day D and patch [3/3] on day D+1
P3 - baz - D+1
P2 - bar - D
P1 - foo - D
For whatever reason, before submission, you decide patch [3/3] should
be the first one, so you use "git rebase" do to that:
P3 - bar - D
P2 - foo - D
P1 - baz - D+1
and you git-send the mails.
So, you should always use the numbering specified by the author IMHO
>> If I run into messages with identical dates, I could sort
>> first by date, then by patch number within the series.
More information about the wine-devel