On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 09:17:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> > That is a good question. That confirmation step does come after they
>> > have typed their cover letter. However, if they are using --compose,
>> > they are dumped in their editor with something like:
>> >
>> >   From Jeff King <p...@peff.net> # This line is ignored.
>> >   GIT: Lines beginning in "GIT:" will be removed.
>> >   GIT: Consider including an overall diffstat or table of contents
>> >   GIT: for the patch you are writing.
>> >   GIT:
>> >   GIT: Clear the body content if you don't wish to send a summary.
>> >   From: Jeff King <p...@peff.net>
>> >   Subject:
>> >   In-Reply-To:
>> >
>> > which I think would count as sufficient notice of the address being
>> > used.
>> OK.  Tentatively I replaced your old series with these 8 patches
>> including the last one, as I tend to agree with the value the
>> earlier clean-up in the series gives us in the longer term.  As you
>> and Felipe discussed, we may want to replace the last one with a
>> simpler "don't bother asking" patch, but I think that is more or
>> less an orthogonal issue.
> I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about
> exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with
> Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may
> not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may
> want it).

Well, who is using user_ident_sufficiently_given() in the first place?
I think 'git commit' might be suffering from the same problem that
prompted you to split it.


Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to