On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 09:00 -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel Axtens" <d...@axtens.net> > > To: "Stephen Finucane" <step...@that.guru>, patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org > > Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 5:21:48 AM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use parsed subject for mboxes > > > > Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru> writes: > > > > > With a recent change, we started using the original subject header > > > instead of the one we had already cleaned up at the parsing stage. > > > > Does anyone care about the cleaned up header in the mbox? Git strips it > > all off anyway... Is there any docs on why we did things that way > > originally? > > > > I agree with Daniel and Johannes. For the mboxes, we should use the original > subject for consistency with the original patch sent. Scripts might get > confused by the difference, and there might be ones requiring "PATCH" in the > subject etc. Unless there is an important reason to use parsed subject in the > mbox, I'd rather revert this and fix the tests. Especially as it's not even > the mbox tests that fail (which I've run) but the bundles tests using the > patch's name to assert the patch was added to the bundle (using > X-Patchwork-Id for those tests would be more appropriate choice).
Yeah, that's fine with me. It doesn't look like git-am or the likes care and, as Daniel noted earlier in the thread, no one really reads mboxes by themselves. TBh, I just wanted to fix the tests and this did look initially like a regression. If someone's happy to pick this up, I can review/apply. Stephen PS: Might want to add a release note about this change in behavior though. _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork