From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:04:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 8/8] send-email: do not prompt for explicit repo ident Message-ID: <7vzk2hl3gv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20121116190811.GB2310@sigill.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 09:17:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> 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). Oh, no, you are correct. I shouldn't have said "the last one", but instead "the later ones". The first two we should definitely keep, at least, but the other three are not so clear.