Hi Krzysztof, > Date: 2026-11-05 16:21:02+0100 > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski > [...] > > My mailbox gets 200-300 patches per day (not counting replies), so I > have no idea how that could be manageable if all versions of some series > were threaded to itself. Some old thread popping up to the top, > half-read, deeply nested like 20-deep indentation? > > But even in second workflow, reviewing individual patches via b4 or mutt > after shazaming (my main workflow of DT) not via inbox, would get huge > irrelevant thread of past discussions requiring me to look for stuff > actually for the review. How to find actual patch to review in this huge > thread? I tried many times, takes much more time than reviewing simply > current version. I send patch set revisions in reply to the cover letter of v1, not in reply to the last revision. This means that revised patches will be indented 2 levels deep, not 20+. That is, this is how they'd look: [PATCH v1 00] ... ├─> [PATCH v1 01] ... ├─> [PATCH v1 02] ... ├─> [PATCH v1 03] ... ├─> [PATCH v2 00] ... │ ├─> [PATCH v2 01] ... │ ├─> [PATCH v2 02] ... │ └─> [PATCH v2 03] ... ├─> [PATCH v3 00] ... │ ├─> [PATCH v3 01] ... │ ├─> [PATCH v3 02] ... │ └─> [PATCH v3 03] ... └─> [PATCH v4 00] ... ├─> [PATCH v4 01] ... ├─> [PATCH v4 02] ... └─> [PATCH v4 03] ... I jump to new mails with , and the patches have low indentation. I have never felt it hard to navigate within mutt(1), FWIW, but YMMV. Anyway, I can do it just for me, by editing the local mail after sending, and adding an In-Reply-To header just for me. > b4 is not so more complex, honestly it's just new interface and after > learning a few new commands is straightforward and easy. And solves > successfully, without creating noise or problems to others, all problems > which you might be trying to solve: > referencing earlier versions, Solved with threads. > easy > comparing between any version, Solved with the --range-diff in the cover letter. > collecting trailers, sending nice > thank-you letters with commit and tree references etc. I do these manually, but they're much less work than the two above. > I believe there should be no excuse for modern maintainer to not use b4 > in the workflow. The same BTW for submitters of anything bigger than > 3-patch series. It feels more comfortable to me to use git(1) and mutt(1); YMMV. :) Have a lovely day! Alex --