From: Samuel GROOT Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 19:40:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] send-email: shorten send-email's output Message-ID: <9cb7c4aa-56e5-e4e7-a75f-d21943e8342e@grenoble-inp.org> In-Reply-To: On 06/08/2016 09:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Samuel GROOT writes: > >> On 06/08/2016 07:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Samuel GROOT writes: >>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n", >>>> + $1) unless $quiet; >>> >>>> + printf("Adding to: %s from To: header\n", >>>> + $addr) unless $quiet; >>> >>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n", >>>> + $addr) unless $quiet; >>>> push @cc, $addr; >>> >>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n", >>>> + $_) unless $quiet; >>> >>> These make the end result prettier by not repeating the same address >>> twice, but is it just me who finds these inexplicable case >>> differences irritating? Shouldn't these field references in the >>> result mirror the field references in the origin of the information? >> >> It makes sense only in the case below... >> >>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n", >>>> + $1) unless $quiet; >> >> ... because the sender should receive its own copy (at least to avoid >> breaking threaded view in his mailer) and be cc-ed. By the way, we >> should cc the sender when sending the cover letter too for the same >> reason. >> >> But in other cases, it seems pointless to display identical field >> reference twice. > > My comment may have been a bit too oblique. What I meant was > > Adding cc: Samuel from From: header > > looked strange, and I thought it would be better written > > Adding Cc: Samuel from From: header > > Same for > > Adding to: Samuel from To: header > > being strange, and a better version of it would be > > Adding To: Samuel from To: header Oh, I read your email a bit too fast, sorry. I kept the sentence as it was except for trimmed part, but it makes sense to have the same case. It will be fixed :-)