From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 06:17:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] send-email: shorten send-email's output
Message-ID: <vpqr3c6x4vz.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20160608130142.29879-4-samuel.groot@grenoble-inp.org>

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

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.

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