[U-Boot] [PATCH] pinctrl: renesas: Synchronize Gen2/Gen3 tables with Linux 5.2-rc5

[Jeremy Kerr]

Hi Eugeniu,

> Replicating the chronology of the issue, do you think it could be
> related to 1) the patch size or to 2) the moderator's approval event?
> 
>   +--------------+
>   |1. Patch sent |
>   +------+-------+
>          |   
>   +------v----------------------------------------+
>   |2. U-Boot reports awaiting moderator's approval|
>   |   (the patch does not show up in patchwork)   |
>   +------+----------------------------------------+
>          |   
>   +------v-------------------------------+
>   |3. Reply A (not rendered by patchwork)|
>   +------+-------------------------------+
>          |   
>   +------v-------------------------------+
>   |4. Reply B (not rendered by patchwork)|
>   +------+-------------------------------+
>          |   
>   +------v-----------------------------+
>   |5. Patch approved by moderator      |
>   |   (the patch shows up in patchwork)|
>   +------+-----------------------------+
>          |   
>   +------v---------------------------+
>   |6. Reply C (rendered by patchwork)|
>   +------+---------------------------+
>          |
>   +------v---------------------------+
>   |7. Reply D (rendered by patchwork)|
>   +----------------------------------+


Ah, that would explain it. If an incoming email is not a patch, then
patchwork will assume it is a follow-up to a patch, and try to find the
relevant patch (through the References: and In-Reply-To headers). If no
suitable patch is found, then patchwork does not save the email.

It sounds like that's what's happening here. Since reply A and reply B
are referencing a patch that does not (yet) exist, then the comments are
not kept.

The alternative would be to keep *every* submission to the list, in case
a relevant patch arrives later...

Cheers,


Jeremy




> > I guess we
> > could attempt to decode these, though that's arguably a new feature
> > so
> > I'm not sure if we could backport it to 'stable/2.1'. In any case,
> > could you provide an mbox replete with all the headers so I can see
> > if
> > there are any heuristics we can use to identify these emails?
> 
> Do you mean https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1117783/mbox/ ?
> 
> > Stephen
> > 
> > [1] https://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=156085461011871&q=mbox
> 
> Thanks again!
>