On 06/09/2016 08:01 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Samuel GROOT <samuel.gr...@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
On 06/08/2016 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Samuel GROOT <samuel.gr...@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
Actually we had issues when trying to refactor send-email's email
parsing loop [1]. Email addresses in output file `commandeline1` in
tests weren't sorted the same way as the reference file it was
compared to. E.g.:
!nob...@example.com!
!aut...@example.com!
!o...@example.com!
!t...@example.com!
And the reason why these addresses that are collected from the same
input (i.e. command line, existing e-mail fields, footers, etc.) are
shown in different order in your implementation is...?
It's not shown in different order in our implementation, it's just a
leftover of my refactor attempt [1].
I think the refactoring makes sense, but having this patch as PATCH 1/6
in a series about --in-reply-to confuses reviewers: they would expect
this patch to be useful to the others in the series.
If you have "reply to a message in a file" ready without the
refactoring, and a mostly ready refactoring, then I think it makes sense
to have two patch series, the first being only "reply to a message in a
file". If the refactoring itself is not ready, you may send a separate
series "tests clean up" and explain on the cover-letter that it's, well,
only a test clean up.
I think I will split the patch series into 3 smaller series:
- "quote-email" feature
- tests clean up
- send-email code cleanup (including send-email's output)
--
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
