Re: [PATCH v2] Edit recipient addresses with the --compose flag
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 13, 2008, 03:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vskpwia91.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <1226544602-1839-1-git-send-email-ian.hilt@gmx.com>
Ian Hilt <ian.hilt@gmx.com> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Sometimes specifying the recipient addresses can be tedious on the > command-line. This commit allows the user to edit the recipient > addresses in their editor of choice. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Hilt <ian.hilt@gmx.com> > --- > Here's an updated commit with improved regex's from Junio and Francis.
This heavily depends on Pierre's patch, so I am CC'ing him for comments. Until his series settles down, I cannot apply this anyway.
Show 24 quoted lines
> @@ -489,6 +492,9 @@ GIT: for the patch you are writing.
> GIT:
> GIT: Clear the body content if you don't wish to send a summary.
> From: $tpl_sender
> +To: $tpl_to
> +Cc: $tpl_cc
> +Bcc: $tpl_bcc
> Subject: $tpl_subject
> In-Reply-To: $tpl_reply_to
>
> @@ -512,9 +518,31 @@ EOT
> open(C,"<",$compose_filename)
> or die "Failed to open $compose_filename : " . $!;
>
> + local $/;
> + my $c_file = <C>;
> + $/ = "\n";
> + close(C);
> +
> + my (@tmp_to, @tmp_cc, @tmp_bcc);
> +
> + if ($c_file =~ /^To:\s*(\S.+?)\s*\nCc:/ism) {
> + @tmp_to = get_recipients($1);
> + }Why "\S.+?" and not "\S.*?"? A local user whose login name is 'q' is disallowed?
Why does the user must keep "Cc:" in order for this new code to pick up the list of recipients? In other words, you are forbidding the user from removing the entire "Cc:" line, even when the message should not be Cc'ed to anywhere. Instead there has to remain an empty Cc: line. Worse yet, such an empty "Cc:" line is printed to C2 with your patch and eventually fed to sendmail. I think it is a violation of 2822 to have Cc: that is empty, as the format is specified as:
cc = "Cc:" address-list CRLF
bcc = "Bcc:" (address-list / [CFWS]) CRLF
address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-listShow 6 quoted lines
> + if ($c_file =~ /^Cc:\s*(\S.+?)\s*\nBcc:/ism) {
> + @tmp_cc = get_recipients($1);
> + }
> + if ($c_file =~ /^Bcc:\s*(\S.+?)\s*\nSubject:/ism) {
> + @tmp_bcc = get_recipients($1);
> + }Exactly the same comment applies to Bcc and Subject part of the parsing.
I think the parsing code you introduced simply suck. Why isn't it done as a part of the main loop to read the same file that already exists?
Unlike your additional code above that reads the whole file into a scalar only to discard, the existing main loop processes one line at a file (which should be more memory efficient), and you are not handling the header continuation line anyway, processing one line at a time would make your code much simpler (for one thing, you do not have to do /sm at all). Also it won't be confused as your version would if the message happens to have "To:" or "Cc:" in the message part, thanks to $in_body variable check that is already in the code.