Re: [PATCH v4 01/22] fsck.h: update FSCK_OPTIONS_* for object_name

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

In other words, would you mind using the `--thread=shallow` option in the
future, for better structuring on the mailing list?

Not at all, I've set it in my config now.

I've just been using the default configuration of format-patch
--in-reply-to --cover-letter && send-email *.patch all this time.
...
So I wonder if I'm using some different process from the norm, or if
most everyone else is just looking carefully at Message-ID/In-Reply-To
norms before sending...

Interesting.  I always let send-email assign the message IDs and
haven't used --thread=<any> option at all.  In other words, my
format-patch output files have no message IDs in them or In-reply-to
header fields.  That in turn means that in-reply-to is decided not
when format-patch is run, but when send-email sends things out, it
gives them the ids and structures the in-reply-to chains.

I guess we have too much flexibility in our tooling X-<.