Re: body-CC-comment regression

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Feb 17, 2017, 16:58 UTC
Message-ID: <vpq4lzs7o0s.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20170217164241.GE2625@localhost>

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> writes:
>
>> The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already
>> (b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept 2015), some users may have got
>> used to it. What you are proposing breaks their flow.
>
> Note that that commit never mentions multiple addresses in either
> headers or body-tags -- it's all about being able to specify multiple
> entries on the command line.

Indeed. I'm not the author of the patch, but I was supervising the students who wrote it and "multiple addresses in Cc:" was not the goal, but a (IMHO positive) side effect we discovered after the fact.

If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple addresses there, but ...

Show 5 quoted lines

> There does not seem to be single commit in the kernel where multiple
> address are specified in a CC tag since after git-send-email started
> allowing it, but there are ten commits before (to my surprise), and that
> should be contrasted with at least 4178 commits with trailing comments
> including a # sign.

Hey, there's a life outside the kernel ;-).

Show 7 quoted lines

>> 1) Stop calling Mail::Address even if available.[...]
>
> Right, that sounds like the right thing to do regardless.
>
>> 2) Modify our in-house parser to discard garbage after the >. [...]
>
> Sounds perfectly fine to me, and seems to work too after quick test.

OK, sounds like the way to go.

Do you want to work on a patch? If not, I should be able to do that myself. The code changes are straightforward, but we probably want a proper test for that.

> addresses in a Cc-tag in that it breaks --suppress-cc=self, but I guess
> that can be fixed separately.

OK. If it's unrelated enough, please start a separate thread to explain the problem (and/or write a patch ;-) ).

Thanks,

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/