From: Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:19:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] send-email: shorten send-email's output
Message-ID: <9f16b48f-3f74-d408-8309-3072904f43b7@grenoble-inp.org>
In-Reply-To: <vpqr3c6x4vz.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

On 06/09/2016 08:17 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
>
>> @@ -647,10 +647,10 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ '--suppress-cc=all' '
>>  test_expect_success $PREREQ 'setup expect' "
>>  cat >expected-suppress-body <<\EOF
>>  0001-Second.patch
>> -(mbox) Adding cc: A <author@example.com> from line 'From: A <author@example.com>'
>> -(mbox) Adding cc: One <one@example.com> from line 'Cc: One <one@example.com>, two@example.com'
>> -(mbox) Adding cc: two@example.com from line 'Cc: One <one@example.com>, two@example.com'
>> -(cc-cmd) Adding cc: cc-cmd@example.com from: './cccmd'
>> +Adding cc: A <author@example.com> from From: header
>> +Adding cc: One <one@example.com> from Cc: header
>> +Adding cc: two@example.com from Cc: header
>> +Adding cc: cc-cmd@example.com from: './cccmd'
>
> This hunk differs from the others a bit. I totally agree that removing
> the (mbox) prefix makes sense, but you're removing (cc-cmd) here, which
> did carry some information.
>
> I'd write it as
>
> Adding cc: cc-cmd@example.com from --cc-cmd: ./cccmd

Indeed it's clearer, I will change that.

> It might make sense to split this into two patches: one for (mbox) +
> headers and one for (cc-cmd) and (to-cmd). Spotting special-cases like
> the above inside a long patch is hard for reviewers.

I will split in the future patch series dedicated to clean send-email.