Marco Stornelli <> writes:

> 2012/9/4 Junio C Hamano <>:
>> I would expect, at least when you are responding to an existing
>> message, some of them are filled already (and if so, I think
>> wants to know exactly how, for example, has RFC2047 quoting already
>> applied, or are we supposed to write in UTF-8 and let Thunderbird
>> massage the contents when we give the file back to it?), and also
>> there would appear In-Reply-To: field already filled (possibly there
>> may be References: as well).
> Message reply is out of scope of my patch. The goal here is send a
> patch, so the execution flow is to open a new message,
> clik on external editor (configured properly), select patch file and
> send. It was the scope of the old script and it is the scope of my
> patch.

I certainly can understand that you updated the script for that use
case and that use case only, but given that the original tries very
hard to preserve:

 - what was in $HEADERS (by only replacing Subject);
 - the recipients CC'ed in $HEADERS (by grabbing them into $CCS); and
 - the body of the message in $BODY (i.e. what came after $SEP),

I find it hard to believe that it was meant to work on a freshly
created empty message and nothing else.  If people were depending on
the recipients listed on Cc that are taken from $1 to be preserved,
your patch will introduce a regression for them, no?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to