Matthieu Moy writes:
> We clearly can't guess, but we can be consistent with Mail::Address, so
> that git's behavior depends less on its availability.
>
> Patch follows doing that.
Thanks. I love that somebody counters with a much better way to
solve it whenever I
Kevin Daudt writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> I think the answer is pretty clearly no. It's just that historically we
>> have auto-munged it into something useful. I think the viable options
>> are basically:
>>
>> 1. Tell people not to
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Matthieu Moy writes:
> >
> > >>> If it's not in the body of the message, then where is it?
> > >>
> > >> This point is clarified in
Jeff King writes:
> 2. Drop everything after the trailing ">". This gives a valid rfc2822
> cc, and people can pick the "# 4.8" from the cc line in the body.
That would work for me, but it's inconsistent with Mail::Address and I'd
really like to avoid having a behavior
Junio C Hamano writes:
> People write things like these
>
> Cc: Stable # 4.8
> Cc: Stable [4.8+]
>
> in the trailer part in the body of the message. Are these lines
> meant to be usable if they appear as Cc: headers of
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
> >>> If it's not in the body of the message, then where is it?
> >>
> >> This point is clarified in the thread
> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=147625930203434=2, which
Matthieu Moy writes:
>>> If it's not in the body of the message, then where is it?
>>
>> This point is clarified in the thread
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=147625930203434=2, which is
>> with my upstream maintainer.
>
> Which explicitly states that the
On 10/12/2016 10:45 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
On 10/12/2016 02:36 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
That
Larry Finger writes:
> On 10/12/2016 02:36 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Larry Finger writes:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
> That added information at the end
Larry Finger writes:
> On 10/12/2016 02:36 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Larry Finger writes:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
> That added information at the end
On 10/12/2016 02:36 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
That added information at the end is intended to be passed on to the
stable group. In this case, the
On 10/12/2016 02:36 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
That added information at the end is intended to be passed on to the
stable group. In this case, the
Larry Finger writes:
> On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Larry Finger writes:
>>
>>> That added information at the end is intended to be passed on to the
>>> stable group. In this case, the patch needs to be applied to kernel
On 10/11/2016 11:18 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Larry Finger writes:
That added information at the end is intended to be passed on to the
stable group. In this case, the patch needs to be applied to kernel
versions 4.8 and later.
OK, but where do people fetch this
Larry Finger writes:
> That added information at the end is intended to be passed on to the
> stable group. In this case, the patch needs to be applied to kernel
> versions 4.8 and later.
OK, but where do people fetch this information from?
When you use git
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:39:58AM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >> I can't reproduce the problem with this simple setup:
> >>
> >>git init
> >>echo content >file && git add file
> >>git commit -F- <<-\EOF
> >>the subject
> >>
> >>the body
> >>
> >>Cc: Stable
On 10/11/2016 02:39 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Jeff King writes:
[+cc authors of b1c8a11, which regressed this case; I'll quote liberally
to give context]
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 05:48:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
I can't reproduce the problem with this simple setup:
Jeff King writes:
> [+cc authors of b1c8a11, which regressed this case; I'll quote liberally
> to give context]
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 05:48:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> I can't reproduce the problem with this simple setup:
>>
>> git init
>> echo content
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 06:35:01PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> > Ah, it is Mail::Address. It gets this case right, but if I uninstall it,
> > then the cc becomes:
> >
> > Cc: Stable
> >
> > that you saw, which is broken. Older versions of git, even without
> >
On 10/10/2016 04:57 PM, Jeff King wrote:
[+cc authors of b1c8a11, which regressed this case; I'll quote liberally
to give context]
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 05:48:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
I can't reproduce the problem with this simple setup:
git init
echo content >file
[+cc authors of b1c8a11, which regressed this case; I'll quote liberally
to give context]
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 05:48:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I can't reproduce the problem with this simple setup:
>
> git init
> echo content >file && git add file
> git commit -F-
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 04:00:56PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> I have recently switched to openSUSE Leap 42.2 and found that some of the
> features of send_mail no longer work. The problem occurs when trying to add
> information to a Cc to Stable.
>
> The initial pass through the patch produces
I have recently switched to openSUSE Leap 42.2 and found that some of the
features of send_mail no longer work. The problem occurs when trying to add
information to a Cc to Stable.
The initial pass through the patch produces the output
(body) Adding cc: Stable [4.8+]
23 matches
Mail list logo