On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Johan Hovold <[email protected]> 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 this in the tags in the body (a SoB
> > always has one address, and so should a CC-tag).
>
> I mostly agree for the SoB, but why should a Cc tag have only one email?
For symmetry (with SoB) and readability reasons (one tag per line).
These are body tags, not mail headers, after all.
> 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 breaks their flow.
Note that that commit never mentions multiple addresses in either
headers or body-tags -- it's all about being able to specify multiple
entries on the command line.
There does not seem to be single commit in the kernel where multiple
address are specified in a CC tag since after git-send-email started
allowing it, but there are ten commits before (to my surprise), and that
should be contrasted with at least 4178 commits with trailing comments
including a # sign.
> > And since this is a regression for something that has been working for
> > years that was introduced by a new feature, I also think it's reasonable
> > to (partially) revert the feature.
>
> I'd find it rather ironic to fix your case by breaking a feature that
> has been working for more than a year :-(. What would you answer to a
> contributor comming one year from now and proposing to revert your
> reversion because it breaks his flow?
Such conflicts are not uncommon when dealing with regressions introduced
by new features, and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But
the fact that trailing comments have been properly supported for more
than four years should carry some weight.
> All that said, I think another fix would be both satisfactory for
> everyone and rather simple:
>
> 1) Stop calling Mail::Address even if available. It used to make sense
> to do that when our in-house parser was really poor, but we now have
> something essentially as good as Mail::Address. We test our parser
> against Mail::Address and we do have a few known differences (see
> t9000), but they are really corner-cases and shouldn't matter.
>
> A good consequence of this is that we stop depending on the way Perl
> is installed to parse emails. Regardless of the current issue, I
> think it is a good thing.
Right, that sounds like the right thing to do regardless.
> 2) Modify our in-house parser to discard garbage after the >. The patch
> should look like (untested):
>
> --- a/perl/Git.pm
> +++ b/perl/Git.pm
> @@ -903,11 +903,11 @@ sub parse_mailboxes {
> my (@addr_list, @phrase, @address, @comment, @buffer) = ();
> foreach my $token (@tokens) {
> if ($token =~ /^[,;]$/) {
> - # if buffer still contains undeterminated strings
> - # append it at the end of @address or @phrase
> - if ($end_of_addr_seen) {
> - push @phrase, @buffer;
> - } else {
> + # if buffer still contains undeterminated
> + # strings append it at the end of @address,
> + # unless we already saw the closing >, in
> + # which case we discard it.
> + if (!$end_of_addr_seen) {
> push @address, @buffer;
> }
>
> What do you think?
Sounds perfectly fine to me, and seems to work too after quick test.
Note however that there's another minor issue with using multiple
addresses in a Cc-tag in that it breaks --suppress-cc=self, but I guess
that can be fixed separately.
Thanks,
Johan
