On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:38:57AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would think that future callers would just need to provide a dummy > > pp->rev. I guess that logic could be pushed down into > > fmt_output_email_subject(), so that it skips looking at > > opt->subject_prefix, etc, when "opt" is NULL, and just hits the > > "Subject:" case arm. > > The "flexibility" I was wondering about is that the current .subject can > point at any caller-supplied string, not "Subject:".
Ah, I see. I don't think that is a huge loss, as nobody was using it. And "Subject:" is already hard-coded in the nr/total counting bits, which are what you'd want to reuse. I think it is fine to punt to the future. If somebody really wants it later, the right fix is for them to provide a string that fmt_output_email_subject() would use in place of "Subject:" when it adds to the strbuf. -Peff
