From: Samuel GROOT Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:26:27 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] send-email: --in-reply-to= populate header fields Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 06/08/2016 08:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Samuel GROOT writes: > >> +if ($initial_reply_to && -f $initial_reply_to) { >> + my $error = validate_patch($initial_reply_to); > > This call is wrong, isn't it? > > You are not going to send out the message you are responding to (the > message may not even be a patch), and you do not want to die with an > error message that says "patch contains an overlong line". We used to handle email files like patch files (with Cc:, To:, From:, ... fields, a patch is almost an email, with some trailers). But that `validate_patch` subroutine call is indeed useless here, I will remove it. >> + die "fatal: $initial_reply_to: $error\nwarning: no patches were sent\n" >> + if $error; >> + >> + open my $fh, "<", $initial_reply_to or die "can't open file $initial_reply_to"; >> + my $mail = Git::parse_email($fh); >> + close $fh; > > my $header = Git::parse_email_header($fh); > > perhaps? Git::parse_email will be renamed into Git::parse_email_header in v5. >> + my $initial_sender = $sender || $repoauthor || $repocommitter || ''; >> + >> + my $prefix_re = ""; >> + my $subject_re = $mail->{"subject"}[0]; >> + if ($subject_re =~ /^[^Re:]/) { >> + $prefix_re = "Re: "; >> + } >> + $initial_subject = $prefix_re . $subject_re; > > I am not sure what the significance of the fact that the subject > happens to begin with a letter other than 'R', 'e', or ':'. > > Did you mean to do something like this instead? > > my $subject = $mail->{"subject"}[0]; > $subject =~ s/^(re:\s*)+//i; # strip "Re: Re: ..." > $initial_subject = "Re: $subject"; > > instead? That's way cleaner, thanks! > By the way, this is a good example why your "unfold" implementation > in 4/6 is unwieldy for the caller. Imagine a rather long subject > that is folded, i.e. > > To: Samuel > Subject: Help! I am having a trouble running git-send-email > correctly. > Message-id: <...> It's a good point. What you suggested in 4/6 reply will be used in v5.