From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:08:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 8/8] send-email: do not prompt for explicit repo ident
Message-ID: <20121116190811.GB2310@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vzk2i6s9h.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 09:17:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > That is a good question. That confirmation step does come after they
> > have typed their cover letter. However, if they are using --compose,
> > they are dumped in their editor with something like:
> >
> >   From Jeff King <peff@peff.net> # This line is ignored.
> >   GIT: Lines beginning in "GIT:" will be removed.
> >   GIT: Consider including an overall diffstat or table of contents
> >   GIT: for the patch you are writing.
> >   GIT:
> >   GIT: Clear the body content if you don't wish to send a summary.
> >   From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> >   Subject: 
> >   In-Reply-To: 
> >
> > which I think would count as sufficient notice of the address being
> > used.
> 
> OK.  Tentatively I replaced your old series with these 8 patches
> including the last one, as I tend to agree with the value the
> earlier clean-up in the series gives us in the longer term.  As you
> and Felipe discussed, we may want to replace the last one with a
> simpler "don't bother asking" patch, but I think that is more or
> less an orthogonal issue.

I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about
exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with
Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may
not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may
want it).

-Peff