On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:46:39PM +0300, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 15:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:47:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > > Well, then to each their own. I prefer the content free ping, because in
> > > my mail client (claws), it brings the original patch up to the front
> > > (my threading is to sort by latest email in the thread). A simple ping
> > > will move their patch ahead of other patches that may have been sent
> > > later, but are still in the abyss.

> > Interesting, not noticed a mail client with that sorting scheme before.

> I thought all mail clients can do this ... evolution certainly does and
> I use it and imap labels to create lists of patches ready for applying.

Hrm, perhaps it's more common in graphical clients than text mode ones -
I have to confess I've never really got on with graphical clients for
kernel workflow and everything else I'm much more inbox 0.  I mostly use
mutt but I do try others from time to time.

> However, there is an unintended consequence: If I'm working from this
> list and applying patches in the order the mail client is presenting
> them, any patch which receives a reply gets dragged to the bottom of my
> list.  Usually this is correct because it means there's still debate
> about the patch, but if you're going to send me pings as replies, they
> have the same effect and delay the testing and application of the patch.

Heh.