From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:29:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] send-email: new option to quote an email and reply to
Message-ID: <vpqh9dmfy5k.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <b1752a59-af2b-6e18-fc69-0650440939e3@grenoble-inp.org>

Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org> writes:

> On 05/23/2016 10:00 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Your --quote-mail does two things:
>>
>> 1) Populate the To and Cc field
>>
>> 2) Include the original message body with quotation prefix.
>>

[...]

>> * If --compose is not given, don't send a cover-letter but cite the body
>>   as comment in the first patch.
>
> Then should the option imply `--annotate`, to let the user edit the
> patch containing the quoted email?

Actually, I'm not sure what the ideal behavior should be. Perhaps it's
better to distinguish 1) and 2) above, and have two options
--reply-to-email=<file> doing 1), and --quote doing 2), implying
--compose and requiring --reply-to-email.

That would be more flexible, but that would require two new options, and
I also like to keep things simple.

In any case, quoting the message without replying to it does not make
sense (especially if you add instructions to trim it: the user would not
even see it). So it its current form, I'd say --quote-email should imply
--annotate.

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