From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:06:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] send-email: only consider lines containing @ or <> for automatic Cc'ing
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:

> 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?