Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > Matthieu Moy writes: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can >>> write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon >>>

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can >> write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon >> as part of the "cruft", no? > > Right. Indeed, this

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Matthieu Moy
Junio C Hamano writes: > That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can > write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon > as part of the "cruft", no? Right. Indeed, this may be a problem since the use of "#" for stable seem to

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Johan Hovold writes: >> >>> That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did. >> >> That's good. I didn't see any patch yet > > It's here: > >

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Matthieu Moy
Junio C Hamano writes: > Johan Hovold writes: > >> That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did. > > That's good. I didn't see any patch yet It's here: http://public-inbox.org/git/20170217110642.GD2625@localhost/ but as I

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johan Hovold writes: > That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did. That's good. I didn't see any patch yet but the message you are responding to is a response to Matthieu's message asking if you are planning to work on it, so I'd assume you are and and

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Johan Hovold
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:18:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Matthieu Moy writes: > > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > ... > > If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple > > addresses there, but

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy writes: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > ... > If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple > addresses there, but ... > >> There does not seem to be single commit in the kernel where multiple

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > I mostly agree for the SoB, but why should a Cc tag have only one email? Because changing that clearly broke real and useful behavior. The "multiple email addresses" thing is bogus and wrong. Just don't do

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Johan Hovold
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:58:11PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Johan Hovold writes: > > > >> The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already > >> (b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Matthieu Moy
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: >> Johan Hovold writes: > >> The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already >> (b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept 2015), some users may have got >> used to it. What you are proposing

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Johan Hovold
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Johan Hovold writes: > > > There is another option, namely to only accept a single address for tags > > in the body. I understand that being able to copy a CC-header to either > > the header section or to the

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Matthieu Moy
Johan Hovold writes: > There is another option, namely to only accept a single address for tags > in the body. I understand that being able to copy a CC-header to either > the header section or to the command line could be useful, but I don't > really see the point in allowing

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-17 Thread Johan Hovold
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 07:16:57PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Johan Hovold writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2) > > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel > > stable-tag in its body. For

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-16 Thread Matthieu Moy
Johan Hovold writes: > Hi, > > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2) > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel > stable-tag in its body. For example, > > Cc: # 4.4 > > was now parsed as >

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-16 Thread Johan Hovold
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:59:25AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johan Hovold writes: > > > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2) > > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel > > stable-tag in its body. For example, > > >

Re: body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-16 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johan Hovold writes: > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2) > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel > stable-tag in its body. For example, > > Cc: # 4.4 > > was now parsed as > >

body-CC-comment regression

2017-02-16 Thread Johan Hovold
Hi, I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2) started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel stable-tag in its body. For example, Cc: # 4.4 was now parsed as "sta...@vger.kernel.org#4.4" which resulted