Re: [PATCH RESEND] send-email: add 'specify-author' option

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 7, 2012, 11:46 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0D1RXteHvCrsmaKVcfaK4SRArXf_nF7by2jJkgatkG-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vobr4ze5z.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 39 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> The "Subject:" is very often used in the wild, when responding to an
>>> existing discussion thread with a patch, without changing the topic of the
>>> thread (I would say it is used more than "From: " override).
>>
>> Hmm, but that is different, isn't it?
>>
>> AFAIK people use this format:
>>
>> ---
>> $headers
>>
>> Message
>>
>> Patch (format-patch output: headers, commit message, diff)
>> ---
>>
>> In this case 'git am' would ignore the patch headers. The only way
>> 'git am' would override $headers, is if the first part of the body has
>> new headers:
>>
>> ---
>> $headers
>>
>> $patch_headers
>>
>> $patch_commit_message
>>
>> $patch_diff
>> ---
>>
>> IOW; if there's no message at the beginning of the body.
>
> Your notation is a bit unclear to me, but I take that $headers mean the
> e-mail headers, and $patch_headers mean what we often call "in-body"
> headers; in other words, your patch is "duplicate my authorship in
> $patch_headers because my MSA/MTA mangles my name in $headers."  Am I
> following you well so far?

Yes, but 'git send-email' already does that; when the author and sender are not the same.

Show 6 quoted lines

> What I meant to say was that perhaps the approach can help the same class
> of issues where other fields in $headers can be corrupted and the user
> wants duplicate in "in-body", assuming that it is less likely to be eaten,
> and non-ASCII subject was one example that immediately came to my mind.
>
> So in that sense, it is not much a different issue.

No, but it requires new code, whereas my patch only exercises existing code.

>> I can't foresee that, but I guess we can do it anyway. So which would
>> be the fields to repeat? From, Date, and Subject?
>
> I would say From and Subject are equally worth considering.

So only From and Subject? Not Date?

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras