On 29 Sep 08:44, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Stephen Finucane <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 28 Sep 15:22, Daniel Axtens wrote: > >> We're about to rework header parsing. Try to ensure the changes > >> preserve functionality. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <[email protected]> > > > > I like the idea, but I don't know if there is any advantage in being > > quite so specific? Couldn't we drop a lot of these headers? (for > > example, the problematic 'CC' header)? This would require a new mbox > > file but that's not the end of the world :) > >
[snip] > > Yeah, I think this can go. It doesn't prove anything that I can see, so > > we don't need the complexity. > > Sure, no worries. Just drop the patch entirely. I wrote it originally as > a sanity check for myself and I just included it in the series on the > off chance it ended up being something we wanted. OK, I'll pass on this one for now so. I'm open to the general idea though for a future change. Stephen _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
