Junio C Hamano writes:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>
>>> That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can
>>> write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon
>>> as part of the "cruft", no?
>>
>> Right. Indeed, this may be a proble
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can
>> write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon
>> as part of the "cruft", no?
>
> Right. Indeed, this may be a problem since the use of "#" for stable
>
Junio C Hamano writes:
> That approach may still constrain what those in the former camp can
> write in the "cruft" part, like they cannot write comma or semicolon
> as part of the "cruft", no?
Right. Indeed, this may be a problem since the use of "#" for stable
seem to include commit message, a
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>> Johan Hovold writes:
>>
>>> That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did.
>>
>> That's good. I didn't see any patch yet
>
> It's here:
>
> http://public-inbox.org/git/20170217110642.GD2625@localhost/
>
> but as I explain
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Johan Hovold writes:
>
>> That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did.
>
> That's good. I didn't see any patch yet
It's here:
http://public-inbox.org/git/20170217110642.GD2625@localhost/
but as I explained, this removes a feature suported sinc
Johan Hovold writes:
> That's precisely what the patch I posted earlier in the thread did.
That's good. I didn't see any patch yet but the message you are
responding to is a response to Matthieu's message asking if you are
planning to work on it, so I'd assume you are and and look forward
to se
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:18:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> > ...
> > If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple
> > addresses there, but ...
> >
> >> There does not seem
Matthieu Moy writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> ...
> If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple
> addresses there, but ...
>
>> There does not seem to be single commit in the kernel where multiple
>> address are specified in a C
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
>
> I mostly agree for the SoB, but why should a Cc tag have only one email?
Because changing that clearly broke real and useful behavior.
The "multiple email addresses" thing is bogus and wrong. Just don't do it.
How would you even parse it
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:58:11PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >> Johan Hovold writes:
> >
> >> The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already
> >> (b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept 2015), some users may
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Johan Hovold writes:
>
>> The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already
>> (b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept 2015), some users may have got
>> used to it. What you are proposing breaks their flow.
>
> N
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Johan Hovold writes:
>
> > There is another option, namely to only accept a single address for tags
> > in the body. I understand that being able to copy a CC-header to either
> > the header section or to the command line could be us
Johan Hovold writes:
> There is another option, namely to only accept a single address for tags
> in the body. I understand that being able to copy a CC-header to either
> the header section or to the command line could be useful, but I don't
> really see the point in allowing this in the tags in
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 07:16:57PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Johan Hovold writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2)
> > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel
> > stable-tag in its body. For example,
> >
> > Cc
Johan Hovold writes:
> Hi,
>
> I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2)
> started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel
> stable-tag in its body. For example,
>
> Cc: # 4.4
>
> was now parsed as
>
> "sta...@vger.kernel.org#4.4"
>
> w
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:59:25AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johan Hovold writes:
>
> > I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2)
> > started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel
> > stable-tag in its body. For example,
> >
> > Cc: # 4.
Johan Hovold writes:
> I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2)
> started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel
> stable-tag in its body. For example,
>
> Cc: # 4.4
>
> was now parsed as
>
> "sta...@vger.kernel.org#4.4"
> ...
It sou
Hi,
I recently noticed that after an upgrade, git-send-email (2.10.2)
started aborting when trying to send patches that had a linux-kernel
stable-tag in its body. For example,
Cc: # 4.4
was now parsed as
"sta...@vger.kernel.org#4.4"
which resulted in
Died at /usr/l
18 matches
Mail list logo
