On 2016-10-10 07:06, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 18:02 +0100, Stephen Finucane wrote:
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?
Forgive me for jumping in without understanding much of the context.
Couldn't we drop a lot of these headers? (for
example, the problematic 'CC' header)?
We don't need the Cc header line in patchwork itself today, but Kalle
is writing a tool that, among other things, will send out emails when
patches are applied, and preserving the Cc line for that is really
quite useful.
But I may very well be misinterpreting this entirely.
You are :) This patch was simply a test to validate parsing of headers.
Daniel had used an existing mail and had hardcoded the expected parsed
version of the headers into the tests, resulting in a really long test.
The suggestion above was to validate against a simpler mail and make the
test shorter. This patch has been since dropped anyway so it's not an
issue in any case :)
Stephen
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
