On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:45:48PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:16:20PM -0400, Derek Schrock wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:58:56AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > This patch seems okay to me. Does anyone have any opposition to adding > > > these new expandos? > > > > > > > I was going to make a small change to the expandos and make them > > optional. > > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I don't see it necessary to make the > expandos optional. They don't change any behavior unless you actually > use them. But feel free to resubmit your patches as you see fit.
I felt the expandos should be optional if the message doesn't have a To: or Cc: header then if you're using them in your attribution the messages looks cleaner without the two blank lines. attribution="...%?r?To: %r\n?..." In my case I thought about using some autocmd in vim to auto remove blank To:/Cc: lines but figured it was better to do it in mutt. If something doesn't seem right about that let me know. > > > Seeing that there was already some objections to the delivery and > > contents I was going to repatchbomb a split patch (one for %r/R and one > > for attribution buffer change). > > This is a pretty small patch, so you don't have to split it out if you > don't want. I think David saw them as having a bit different purposes, > so suggested making them different patches, but for a one-liner it's not > critical. Ok It's a single patch
