Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> writes: > > When parsing an mbox, it is possible to get existing In-Reply-To > > and References headers blindly appended into the headers of > > message we generate. This is probably the wrong thing to do > > and we should prioritize what was given in the command-line, > > cover letter, and previously-sent messages. > > > > One example I've noticed in the wild was: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20161111124541.8216-17-vascomalme...@sapo.pt/raw > > --- > > I'm not completely sure this is what Vasco was doing in that > > message, so it's an RFC for now... > > I think it is sensibleto give priority to the --in-reply-to option > given from the command line over the in-file one. I am not sure if > we want to drop references, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to > just add what we got from the command line to what we read from the > file? I dunno.
You're right, existing References in the bodies should probably be prepended to current ones, as their order should be oldest-to-newest. I'll wait on comments a bit and work on a better version w/ tests next week.
