From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:43:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pretty: use fmt_output_email_subject()
Message-ID: <20170301194340.5phhr7lqdqiji277@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPc5daUyu_=5GeGqBAG_KvkZFE_0oD6Wa_HhoRQwZ2ANUwOF+Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:38:57AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > I would think that future callers would just need to provide a dummy
> > pp->rev. I guess that logic could be pushed down into
> > fmt_output_email_subject(), so that it skips looking at
> > opt->subject_prefix, etc, when "opt" is NULL, and just hits the
> > "Subject:" case arm.
> 
> The "flexibility" I was wondering about is that the current .subject can
> point at any caller-supplied string, not "Subject:".

Ah, I see. I don't think that is a huge loss, as nobody was using it.
And "Subject:" is already hard-coded in the nr/total counting bits,
which are what you'd want to reuse. I think it is fine to punt to the
future. If somebody really wants it later, the right fix is for them to
provide a string that fmt_output_email_subject() would use in place of
"Subject:" when it adds to the strbuf.

-Peff