From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 19:33:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] send-email: shorten send-email's output Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4253fcd6-dba5-fc9a-d63e-e40ba10bb9e7@grenoble-inp.org> Samuel GROOT writes: > On 06/08/2016 07:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Samuel GROOT writes: >>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n", >>> + $1) unless $quiet; >> >>> + printf("Adding to: %s from To: header\n", >>> + $addr) unless $quiet; >> >>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n", >>> + $addr) unless $quiet; >>> push @cc, $addr; >> >>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n", >>> + $_) unless $quiet; >> >> These make the end result prettier by not repeating the same address >> twice, but is it just me who finds these inexplicable case >> differences irritating? Shouldn't these field references in the >> result mirror the field references in the origin of the information? > > It makes sense only in the case below... > >>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n", >>> + $1) unless $quiet; > > ... because the sender should receive its own copy (at least to avoid > breaking threaded view in his mailer) and be cc-ed. By the way, we > should cc the sender when sending the cover letter too for the same > reason. > > But in other cases, it seems pointless to display identical field > reference twice. My comment may have been a bit too oblique. What I meant was Adding cc: Samuel from From: header looked strange, and I thought it would be better written Adding Cc: Samuel from From: header Same for Adding to: Samuel from To: header being strange, and a better version of it would be Adding To: Samuel from To: header