{"thread":{"id":"31247","subject":"send-email and in-reply-to = n","startedAt":"2012-08-13T23:50:33Z","lastAt":"2012-09-06T21:49:25Z","messageCount":13,"participants":["Stephen Boyd","Junio C Hamano","Martin von Zweigbergk"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"196948","messageId":"CALaEz9WQJBQ+OtDOhjH7Gz5Uw9Hu+82fOikf20WuTZy4RJsBPg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"send-email and in-reply-to = n","fromName":"Stephen Boyd","fromEmail":"bebarino@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-08-13T23:50:33Z","receivedAt":"2012-08-13T23:50:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"bebarino@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38832?v=4"},"body":"Can we throw up a big warning or just outright fail if someone types\n'n' or 'y' and hits enter for the in-reply-to question in\ngit-send-email? I saw a git-send-email sent patch with an In-Reply-To\nheader containing n on lkml today and it makes threading in my mail\nclient get confused.\n\nhttps://lkml.org/lkml/headers/2012/8/13/503\n"},{"id":"196949","messageId":"7vfw7qbb7y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"CALaEz9WQJBQ+OtDOhjH7Gz5Uw9Hu+82fOikf20WuTZy4RJsBPg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: send-email and in-reply-to = n","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-08-13T23:53:21Z","receivedAt":"2012-08-13T23:53:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Stephen Boyd writes:\n\n> Can we throw up a big warning or just outright fail if someone types\n> 'n' or 'y' and hits enter for the in-reply-to question in\n> git-send-email? I saw a git-send-email sent patch with an In-Reply-To\n> header containing n on lkml today and it makes threading in my mail\n> client get confused.\n\nYeah, I think it is a good idea to minimally sanity check the answer\nto in-reply-to (and possibly other fields); perhaps \"does it have @\nand dot\" would be a good enough heuristics.\n\nPlease make it so ;-)\n"},{"id":"197021","messageId":"CAOeW2eGZm7PLRaktjQQdDJm2BqAihS0pzsY2GUNFUO83s8qBPQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"7vfw7qbb7y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: send-email and in-reply-to = n","fromName":"Martin von Zweigbergk","fromEmail":"martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-08-14T20:51:11Z","receivedAt":"2012-08-14T20:51:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martinvonz@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/891642?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Stephen Boyd writes:\n>\n>> Can we throw up a big warning or just outright fail if someone types\n>> 'n' or 'y' and hits enter for the in-reply-to question in\n>> git-send-email? I saw a git-send-email sent patch with an In-Reply-To\n>> header containing n on lkml today and it makes threading in my mail\n>> client get confused.\n>\n> Yeah, I think it is a good idea to minimally sanity check the answer\n> to in-reply-to (and possibly other fields); perhaps \"does it have @\n> and dot\" would be a good enough heuristics.\n>\n> Please make it so ;-)\n\nAnd if you do, please include the check for the value for the From:\nheader in the \"and possibly other fields\". I made the same mistake\nwhen asked about that value just a few days ago.\n"},{"id":"197026","messageId":"1344983132-22578-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"CAOeW2eGZm7PLRaktjQQdDJm2BqAihS0pzsY2GUNFUO83s8qBPQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"[PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-08-14T22:25:32Z","receivedAt":"2012-08-14T22:25:32Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"People answer 'y' to \"Who should the emails appear to be from?\" and\n'n' to \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email?\"\nfor some unknown reason. While it is possible that really have \"y\"\nas your local username and sending the mail to your local colleagues,\nit is plausible that it could be an error.\n\nFortunately, our interactive prompter already has input validation\nmechanism built-in. Enhance it so that we can optionally reconfirm\nand allow the user to pass an input that does not validate, and\n\"softly\" require input to the sender, in-reply-to, and recipient to\ncontain \"@\" and \".\" in this order, which would catch most cases of\nmistakes.\n\nSigned-off-by: Junio C Hamano \n---\n git-send-email.perl | 16 +++++++++++++---\n 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\nindex ef30c55..e89729b 100755\n--- a/git-send-email.perl\n+++ b/git-send-email.perl\n@@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ sub ask {\n \tmy ($prompt, %arg) = @_;\n \tmy $valid_re = $arg{valid_re};\n \tmy $default = $arg{default};\n+\tmy $confirm_only = $arg{confirm_only};\n \tmy $resp;\n \tmy $i = 0;\n \treturn defined $default ? $default : undef\n@@ -698,6 +699,12 @@ sub ask {\n \t\tif (!defined $valid_re or $resp =~ /$valid_re/) {\n \t\t\treturn $resp;\n \t\t}\n+\t\tif ($confirm_only) {\n+\t\t\tmy $yesno = $term->readline(\"Are you sure you want to use <$resp> [y/N]? \");\n+\t\t\tif (defined $yesno && $yesno =~ /y/i) {\n+\t\t\t\treturn $resp;\n+\t\t\t}\n+\t\t}\n \t}\n \treturn undef;\n }\n@@ -745,13 +752,15 @@ sub file_declares_8bit_cte {\n if (!defined $sender) {\n \t$sender = $repoauthor || $repocommitter || '';\n \t$sender = ask(\"Who should the emails appear to be from? [$sender] \",\n-\t default => $sender);\n+\t default => $sender,\n+\t\t valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n \tprint \"Emails will be sent from: \", $sender, \"\\n\";\n \t$prompting++;\n }\n \n if (!@initial_to && !defined $to_cmd) {\n-\tmy $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to? \");\n+\tmy $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to? \",\n+\t\t valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n \tpush @initial_to, parse_address_line($to) if defined $to; # sanitized/validated later\n \t$prompting++;\n }\n@@ -777,7 +786,8 @@ sub expand_one_alias {\n \n if ($thread && !defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) {\n \t$initial_reply_to = ask(\n-\t\t\"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? \");\n+\t\t\"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? \",\n+\t\tvalid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n }\n if (defined $initial_reply_to) {\n \t$initial_reply_to =~ s/^\\s* wrote:\n> People answer 'y' to \"Who should the emails appear to be from?\" and\n> 'n' to \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email?\"\n> for some unknown reason.\n\nYeah, I know :-(. I did feel stupid already. Thanks for improving.\n"},{"id":"197029","messageId":"7v1uj984kp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"CAOeW2eEOAdVJrVfyZ4osEARXWuXncy3ZSa4ir8BZbUjNjMzbSw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-08-14T22:57:26Z","receivedAt":"2012-08-14T22:57:26Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Martin von Zweigbergk writes:\n\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> People answer 'y' to \"Who should the emails appear to be from?\" and\n>> 'n' to \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email?\"\n>> for some unknown reason.\n>\n> Yeah, I know :-(. I did feel stupid already. Thanks for improving.\n\nActually, it is a very understandable mistake and I do not think it\nis a user stupidity. It is a UI bug in the prompter that gives:\n\n Who should the emails appear to be from? [Junio C Hamano ]\n\nand does *not* tell the user that the way to accept the default is\nto just press RETURN. It makes it look as if it is asking \"Is it OK\nto use this?\", and it is a natural response to say \"Yes\" to the\nprompt.\n\nWe would want to do something like the following pseudo-patch, I\nthink, but I do not know what is the best way to show both $prompt\nand the \"press return\" suggestion to the user, so I am not going to\ndo this myself.\n\nA tested patch to improve this is very much welcomed.\n\nThanks.\n\ndiff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\nindex 607137b..2ec0ce8 100755\n--- a/git-send-email.perl\n+++ b/git-send-email.perl\n@@ -688,6 +688,9 @@ sub ask {\n \t\tunless defined $term->IN and defined fileno($term->IN) and\n \t\t defined $term->OUT and defined fileno($term->OUT);\n \twhile ($i++ < 10) {\n+\t\tif (defined $default) {\n+\t\t\tSAY \"(press RETURN to accept the default)\";\n+\t\t}\n \t\t$resp = $term->readline($prompt);\n \t\tif (!defined $resp) { # EOF\n \t\t\tprint \"\\n\";\n"},{"id":"198396","messageId":"CALaEz9WVCj0gu-CbUJgydik1bC7z7JCcveKTdyxgrTWokXq5JA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"1344983132-22578-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Stephen Boyd","fromEmail":"bebarino@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-09-05T19:24:36Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-05T19:24:36Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bebarino@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38832?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> @@ -745,13 +752,15 @@ sub file_declares_8bit_cte {\n> if (!defined $sender) {\n> $sender = $repoauthor || $repocommitter || '';\n> $sender = ask(\"Who should the emails appear to be from? [$sender] \",\n> - default => $sender);\n> + default => $sender,\n> + valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n\nThis is now bugging me if I just hit enter and don't want to specify\nanything for\nthese headers (I want the defaults or what's in the files already).\nCan we allow\nthe empty string to be valid as well so I don't have to go through\nthese prompts?\n"},{"id":"198414","messageId":"7vsjav6d85.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"CALaEz9WVCj0gu-CbUJgydik1bC7z7JCcveKTdyxgrTWokXq5JA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T03:29:14Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T03:29:14Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Stephen Boyd writes:\n\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> @@ -745,13 +752,15 @@ sub file_declares_8bit_cte {\n>> if (!defined $sender) {\n>> $sender = $repoauthor || $repocommitter || '';\n>> $sender = ask(\"Who should the emails appear to be from? [$sender] \",\n>> - default => $sender);\n>> + default => $sender,\n>> + valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n>\n> This is now bugging me if I just hit enter and don't want to specify\n> anything for\n> these headers (I want the defaults or what's in the files already).\n> Can we allow\n> the empty string to be valid as well so I don't have to go through\n> these prompts?\n\nThat indeed was the intention, and if it is not behaving, you found\na bug.\n\nThe relevant code in \"sub ask\" does this:\n\n\t\t...\n $resp = $term->readline($prompt);\n if (!defined $resp) { # EOF\n print \"\\n\";\n return defined $default ? $default : undef;\n }\n if ($resp eq '' and defined $default) {\n return $default;\n }\n if (!defined $valid_re or $resp =~ /$valid_re/) {\n return $resp;\n }\n\nI am scratching my head wondering why your \"just hit enter\" does not\ntrigger the \"if response is empty and we have default, just return it\"\ncodepath we can see above. It shouldn't even trigger the regexp\nbased validation codepath in the first place.\n"},{"id":"198469","messageId":"CALaEz9W_RR70KEzxk7GxjOu1_yv4UudckcsKAP2C_39Nc2yLbw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"7vsjav6d85.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Stephen Boyd","fromEmail":"bebarino@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T18:31:11Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T18:31:11Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bebarino@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38832?v=4"},"body":"(Sorry sending this from web interface)\n\nOn Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Stephen Boyd writes:\n>> This is now bugging me if I just hit enter and don't want to specify\n>> anything for\n>> these headers (I want the defaults or what's in the files already).\n>> Can we allow\n>> the empty string to be valid as well so I don't have to go through\n>> these prompts?\n>\n> That indeed was the intention, and if it is not behaving, you found\n> a bug.\n>\n> The relevant code in \"sub ask\" does this:\n>\n> ...\n> $resp = $term->readline($prompt);\n> if (!defined $resp) { # EOF\n> print \"\\n\";\n> return defined $default ? $default : undef;\n> }\n> if ($resp eq '' and defined $default) {\n> return $default;\n> }\n> if (!defined $valid_re or $resp =~ /$valid_re/) {\n> return $resp;\n> }\n>\n> I am scratching my head wondering why your \"just hit enter\" does not\n> trigger the \"if response is empty and we have default, just return it\"\n> codepath we can see above. It shouldn't even trigger the regexp\n> based validation codepath in the first place.\n>\n\nIt works fine for \"Who should the emails appear to be from?\" but\nbeyond that we have \"Who should the emails be sent to?\" and\n\"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email?\" which I\ntypically just hit enter to. It seems that they have no \"default\"\nargument so that second if fails. I suppose we can add a default => \"\"\nto these two asks?\n\n----8<-----\ndiff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\nindex 607137b..13d813e 100755\n--- a/git-send-email.perl\n+++ b/git-send-email.perl\n@@ -760,6 +760,7 @@ if (!defined $sender) {\n\n if (!@initial_to && !defined $to_cmd) {\n my $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to? \",\n+ default => \"\",\n valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n push @initial_to, parse_address_line($to) if defined $to; #\nsanitized/validated later\n $prompting++;\n@@ -787,6 +788,7 @@ sub expand_one_alias {\n if ($thread && !defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) {\n $initial_reply_to = ask(\n \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? \",\n+ default => \"\",\n valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n }\n if (defined $initial_reply_to) {\n"},{"id":"198474","messageId":"7vipbq3omb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"CALaEz9W_RR70KEzxk7GxjOu1_yv4UudckcsKAP2C_39Nc2yLbw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T20:03:40Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T20:03:40Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Stephen Boyd writes:\n\n> It works fine for \"Who should the emails appear to be from?\" but\n> beyond that we have \"Who should the emails be sent to?\" and\n> \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email?\" which I\n> typically just hit enter to. It seems that they have no \"default\"\n> argument so that second if fails. I suppose we can add a default => \"\"\n> to these two asks?\n\nFor $initial_reply_to, I think \"empty\" means \"I do not want to make\nthis message reply to anything\", so I think it is OK to either give\na default \"\", or extendign valid_re to also catch an empty string.\nIn either case, the prompt message may want to clarify what happens\nwhen you give an empty input (e.g. \"leave this empty to start a new\nthread\", or something).\n\nIf you let $to to go empty with the first hunk of your patch, where\ndoes the mail eventually go? Does anybody later in the code decide\nto add some recipient? If there is a reason why an empty input is a\nvalid here, I think there is a stronger need (that is, stronger than\nthe above ase for $initial_reply_to) to explain when the user wants\nto leave this empty.\n\n> ----8<-----\n> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\n> index 607137b..13d813e 100755\n> --- a/git-send-email.perl\n> +++ b/git-send-email.perl\n> @@ -760,6 +760,7 @@ if (!defined $sender) {\n>\n> if (!@initial_to && !defined $to_cmd) {\n> my $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to? \",\n> + default => \"\",\n> valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n> push @initial_to, parse_address_line($to) if defined $to; #\n> sanitized/validated later\n> $prompting++;\n> @@ -787,6 +788,7 @@ sub expand_one_alias {\n> if ($thread && !defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) {\n> $initial_reply_to = ask(\n> \"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? \",\n> + default => \"\",\n> valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n> }\n> if (defined $initial_reply_to) {\n"},{"id":"198482","messageId":"7vr4qe26gz.fsf_-_@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"7vipbq3omb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"[PATCH] send-email: initial_to and initial_reply_to are both optional","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T21:21:00Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T21:21:00Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"We may pick up additional recipients from the format-patch output\nfiles we are sending, in which case it is perfectly valid to leave\nthe @initial_to empty when the prompt asks. We may want to start\na new discussion thread without replying to anything, and it is\nvalid to leave $initial_reply_to empty.\n\nAn earlier update to avoid y@example.com stuffed in address fields\ndid not take these two cases into account.\n\nNoticed and fix suggested by Stephen Boyd.\n\nSigned-off-by: Junio C Hamano \n---\n\n * I am tempted to queue this, after asking you to eyeball it, and\n then update the author to pass the blame to you before merging it\n to 'next'.\n\n git-send-email.perl | 6 ++++--\n 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl\nindex e89729b..b1fb7e6 100755\n--- a/git-send-email.perl\n+++ b/git-send-email.perl\n@@ -759,7 +759,8 @@ sub file_declares_8bit_cte {\n }\n \n if (!@initial_to && !defined $to_cmd) {\n-\tmy $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to? \",\n+\tmy $to = ask(\"Who should the emails be sent to (if any)? \",\n+\t\t default => \"\",\n \t\t valid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n \tpush @initial_to, parse_address_line($to) if defined $to; # sanitized/validated later\n \t$prompting++;\n@@ -786,7 +787,8 @@ sub expand_one_alias {\n \n if ($thread && !defined $initial_reply_to && $prompting) {\n \t$initial_reply_to = ask(\n-\t\t\"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? \",\n+\t\t\"Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email (if any)? \",\n+\t\tdefault => \"\",\n \t\tvalid_re => qr/\\@.*\\./, confirm_only => 1);\n }\n if (defined $initial_reply_to) {\n-- \n1.7.12.321.g60f00e5\n"},{"id":"198483","messageId":"CALaEz9ULAAoX0P-Tp7Ma0UmWqRvenkG3OEQPQyE6iqwdV6Kxig@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"7vipbq3omb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: validate & reconfirm interactive responses","fromName":"Stephen Boyd","fromEmail":"bebarino@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T21:47:26Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T21:47:26Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bebarino@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38832?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> If you let $to to go empty with the first hunk of your patch, where\n> does the mail eventually go? Does anybody later in the code decide\n> to add some recipient? If there is a reason why an empty input is a\n> valid here, I think there is a stronger need (that is, stronger than\n> the above ase for $initial_reply_to) to explain when the user wants\n> to leave this empty.\n>\n\nI almost never type anything and just use the To header in the patch I\nwant to send.\n"},{"id":"198484","messageId":"CALaEz9WpL4+712vTrkes6EvBkr3ksnFgb6C_Hm8PdHQTtaZR+g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"31247","inReplyTo":"7vr4qe26gz.fsf_-_@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] send-email: initial_to and initial_reply_to are both optional","fromName":"Stephen Boyd","fromEmail":"bebarino@gmail.com","sentAt":"2012-09-06T21:49:25Z","receivedAt":"2012-09-06T21:49:25Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bebarino@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38832?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> We may pick up additional recipients from the format-patch output\n> files we are sending, in which case it is perfectly valid to leave\n> the @initial_to empty when the prompt asks. We may want to start\n> a new discussion thread without replying to anything, and it is\n> valid to leave $initial_reply_to empty.\n>\n> An earlier update to avoid y@example.com stuffed in address fields\n> did not take these two cases into account.\n>\n> Noticed and fix suggested by Stephen Boyd.\n>\n> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano \n> ---\n>\n> * I am tempted to queue this, after asking you to eyeball it, and\n> then update the author to pass the blame to you before merging it\n> to 'next'.\n>\n\nLooks good, thanks.\n"}]}