On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 12:32 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sat, 2017-07-08 at 00:24 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: > > > The fuzz fixups made the test too strict ("if not subject" rather than > > > "if subject is None") in an attempt to catch broken subject headers. > > > This broke parsing of messages with an empty subject. > > > > > > Fix it and add a test. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <[email protected]> > > > > Is a mail with an empty subject really valid for our use cases? > > You can get a valid patch with an empty subject. It's dumb and people > shouldn't do it, but it is not broken per se.
That's fair. Reviewed-by: Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> ...and applied. _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
