[Pkg-xen-devel] [PATCH 00/19] Fixing cross-compilation, some script work, revised

[Elliott Mitchell]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:27:07PM +0100, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 12/2/20 6:34 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > Hopefully this takes care of the comments which have been made.  Quite a
> > few commit messages were adjusted.  Two scripting commits were broken
> > into tiny pieces.
> > 
> > There are a number of small differences, but the end result will be the
> > same.
> > 
> > Hopefully I've figured out the right set of flags for the way you prefer
> > patches being sent.
> 
> No. Use git send-email. You're still, even after asking many times, not
> using git send-email.
> 
> git format-patch formats *patches*, not emails, even while they might
> appear to look like emails.

According to `sendmail -t` they were valid e-mail.

Problem with `git send-email` is it is *required* to be present on a host
with 2 pieces of software/configuration.  It *must* have the entire git
repository.  It *must* be authorized to *directly* send e-mail for the
address.

The host on which I do development and has the appropriate repositories
doesn't handle this e-mail address.  As such `git send-email` is
*completely* incompatible with this setup.

I find your level of difficulty rather surprising.  The messages all have
[PATCH XX/YY] in their subject lines.  They apply fine if applied in the
order sent, quirks in application suggest a missing patch.  In this case
#05 was missed.  This seems odd since the archive
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/2020-December/date.html
shows them as having appeared in order and almost uninterrupted by other
messages.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg at m5p.com  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445