Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:38:10 -0500
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: update notmuch_tags_get example to reflect api
 change
Message-ID: <20120130233810.GT17991@mit.edu>
References: <1327955744-13031-1-git-send-email-allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com>
	<87aa54x16u.fsf@awakening.csail.mit.edu>
	<20120130230519.GB18672@lifeintegrity.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120130230519.GB18672@lifeintegrity.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: list

Quoth Allan Wind on Jan 30 at  6:05 pm:
> On 2012-01-30 17:42:01, Austin Clements wrote:
> > Sorry, I replied to the wrong one.  This one LGTM.
> > 
> > (BTW, for future reference, it's helpful if you send later versions in
> > reply to the first version so that they're grouped in threads.  Sorry
> > that the documentation on notmuch's coding conventions is so scattered
> > and lacking.  We're working on it.)
> 
> Will do.  I deleted the first message by mistake, and did not see 
> Message-Ids in the archives.  Does git send-email hang on to the 
> message-ids for replies?

That would be nice, but no.

I think you're right that neither the Mailman archive nor Nabble give
access to message IDs.  The mbox archive does, of course, though that
requires downloading and hunting through the entire list history
(though I know of an MUA that's really good at that sort of thing).

Another thing you can do to encourage reviewing of multi-version
patches is to add a version number to the subject.  It makes it easier
for reviewers to recognize what they have or haven't looked at.  git
send-email makes this easy, though non-obvious:
--subject-prefix='PATCH v2' will indicate that a patch (or series) is
version 2 in the conventional way.