Re: [PATCH v4] Thunderbird: fix appp.sh format problems
- From
- Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 4, 2012, 18:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <50464FA8.3020104@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vd321dc0e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Il 04/09/2012 17:49, Junio C Hamano ha scritto:
Show 31 quoted lines
> Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com> writes: > >> 2012/9/4 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>: >> >>> I would expect, at least when you are responding to an existing >>> message, some of them are filled already (and if so, I think appp.sh >>> wants to know exactly how, for example, has RFC2047 quoting already >>> applied, or are we supposed to write in UTF-8 and let Thunderbird >>> massage the contents when we give the file back to it?), and also >>> there would appear In-Reply-To: field already filled (possibly there >>> may be References: as well). >> >> Message reply is out of scope of my patch. The goal here is send a >> patch, so the execution flow is to open a new message, >> clik on external editor (configured properly), select patch file and >> send. It was the scope of the old script and it is the scope of my >> patch. > > I certainly can understand that you updated the script for that use > case and that use case only, but given that the original tries very > hard to preserve: > > - what was in $HEADERS (by only replacing Subject); > - the recipients CC'ed in $HEADERS (by grabbing them into $CCS); and > - the body of the message in $BODY (i.e. what came after $SEP), > > I find it hard to believe that it was meant to work on a freshly > created empty message and nothing else. If people were depending on > the recipients listed on Cc that are taken from $1 to be preserved, > your patch will introduce a regression for them, no? >
I think all the process is different. Current script rely on the user to fill Cc: and To: in message composition window, it does a union of what found in commit message as signed-off-by (adding own address in cc?!) and Cc (usually not filled in the commit message and we should even count acked-by, tested-by and so on). My vision of things: the user can create a patch *already* with all information using --to and --cc. If you want to add optional addresses, you can of course add them in the composition window. In addition, with this approach is really easy to use external script as get_maintainer.pl of linux kernel, load the patch and send, really easy. So I don't think it's a regression, it's only a change in the work flow.
Marco