Re: [PATCH 2/3] send-email: only consider lines containing @ or <> for automatic Cc'ing
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 11, 2018, 06:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqk1mpggpq.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7b03da07-4301-1b42-b8a2-a29e4e1f80d0@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Rasmus Villemoes <rv@rasmusvillemoes.dk> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> I considered that (and also had a version where I simply insisted on a @ > being present), but that means the user no longer would get prompted > about the cases where the address was just slightly obfuscated, e.g. the > > Cc: John Doe <john at doe.com> > > cases, which would be a regression, I guess. So I do want to pass such > cases through, and have them be dealt with when process_address_list > gets called.
We are only tightening with this patch, and we were passing any random things through with the original code anyway, so without [PATCH 3/3], this step must be making it only better, but I have to wonder one thing.
You keep saying "get prompted" but are we sure we always stop and ask (and preferrably---fail and abort when the end user is not available at the terminal to interact) when we have such a questionable address?