Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> So, it seems you're ok with this tightening, but some comment on the
> non-interactive use case should be made in the commit log? Or am I
> misunderstanding?
I do not think we need any immediate action on this step. I was
just wondering if we want two classes of "I
On 2018-10-11 08:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rasmus Villemoes writes:
>
>> I considered that (and also had a version where I simply insisted on a @
>> being present), but that means the user no longer would get prompted
>> about the cases where the address was just slightly obfuscated, e.g. the
Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> I considered that (and also had a version where I simply insisted on a @
> being present), but that means the user no longer would get prompted
> about the cases where the address was just slightly obfuscated, e.g. the
>
> Cc: John Doe
>
> cases, which would be a
On 2018-10-10 14:57, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
>> +if ($c !~ /.+@.+|<.+>/) {
>> +printf("(body) Ignoring %s from line '%s'\n",
>> +$what, $_) unless $quiet;
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> + if ($c !~ /.+@.+|<.+>/) {
> + printf("(body) Ignoring %s from line '%s'\n",
> + $what, $_) unless $quiet;
> + next;
> +
While the address sanitizations routines do accept local addresses, that
is almost never what is meant in a Cc or Signed-off-by trailer.
Looking through all the signed-off-by lines in the linux kernel tree
without a @, there are mostly two patterns: Either just a full name, or
a full name
6 matches
Mail list logo
