Re: [PATCH 0/3] some send-email --compose fixes

> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:42:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>>> So here's the fix in a cleaned up form, guided by my own comments from
>>> earlier. ;) I think this is actually all orthogonal to the patch you are
>>> working on, so yours could either go on top or just be applied
>>> separately.
>>>
>>>   [1/3]: doc/send-email: mention handling of "reply-to" with --compose
>>>   [2/3]: Revert "send-email: extract email-parsing code into a subroutine"
>>>   [3/3]: send-email: handle to/cc/bcc from --compose message
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> With the approach suggested to move the validation down to where the
>> necessary addresses are already all defined, Michael observed "whoa,
>> why am I getting stringified array ref?".  If that is the only issue
>> in the approach, queuing these three patches first and then have
>> Michael's fix on top of them sounds like the cleanest thing to do.

> 
> I don't think it is even an issue in Michael's approach. I'd have to see
> his patch and how he tested it to be sure, but I suspect he was simply
> being extra careful to test nearby behavior and stumbled upon the
> ARRAY() bug. But the bug was there long before either of his patches.
> 

>> Will queue on top of v2.42.0 to help those who may want to backport
>> these to the maintenance track.
> 
> So I think you could take my series on top of master (or 2.42.0), and
> eventually target 'master'. The bug it fixes is from 2017, so not
> urgent. The reading of "to" headers is a new feature.
> 
> But the fix to move the validation around should probably go directly
> onto a8022c5f7b (send-email: expose header information to
> git-send-email's sendemail-validate hook, 2023-04-19) for use on maint.
> I guess maybe it is not that urgent anymore, as that regression is in
> v2.41, and we would not release anything along that maint track anymore,
> though.
> 
> -Peff