Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] send-email: new option to quote an email and reply to

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 25, 2016, 15:40 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwpmi16zt.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqh9dmfy5k.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> 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.

I tend to agree that sounds like a better way to structure these features.

I wonder if we can safely repurpose existing --in-reply-to option? That is, if the value of --in-reply-to can be reliably determined as a filename that has the message (as opposed to a message-id), we read the "Message-Id:" from that file to figuire out what message-id to use, and figure out To/Cc: to use for the purpose of your (1) at the same time. In the future, you might even teach send-email, perhaps via a user configurable hook, a way to get to the message header and text given a message-id, and when it happens, the same logic can be used when --in-reply-to is given a message-id (i.e. you go from the id to the message and find the addresses you would To/Cc: your message).

> 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.