From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43621F45F for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 14:19:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726444AbfEGOTq (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 10:19:46 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com ([209.85.166.194]:38988 "EHLO mail-it1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726399AbfEGOTq (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 10:19:46 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id m186so1225683itd.4 for ; Tue, 07 May 2019 07:19:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vxHpSfD1S7JtnYPpj4saw+iL6jSfv0H1I3Srvu27tUs=; b=Bsgq468Ozo8yLQlyFuE1Hb70q4F4fM1ncR1WHXLe2mHEy7GEvgUSAyJaZvj7cu3M2d 1HAaZv2j8LlbF+kAqPMbWAWUmwASa77kJHogDEVQ+7yTQCkNAKtoZPj+tx6viPthUu/h t9SbY8rwB96ylGF710O4TcAcRjSBQTLy09+eNiXRXzPzgbzvVSA8XCkyIlAdYpFXGkLS AtgbdD5QJXKVZaBLcU6fqeC19UgLh8c1hYqZzviFij0O4Zybjusk5y74jMgI0g0cSrWU tWxuVyiLsP2iDAGlCdBGHgxsqTB5Ij8+PLgplPuzDHGaJ13QzUWnzlOYPdVWneNWS8CX Wwcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=vxHpSfD1S7JtnYPpj4saw+iL6jSfv0H1I3Srvu27tUs=; b=J0Mfvmjk/s7o2Exz9S5qQ1JRnvt2dBRDTtapjT0BsxcgEyMUkhrIszW3Jcnvum9Zp8 aGRtn1JQtEMA7ZNqZhgwlxu4iGySi3ry99HVLiLiSrtc6mHpGZjxQSOKayTFktdgiRY6 jzeixvB2OyNuKtp/z4P0I2xDASSeECxg/fYXNcxcKIG25sXBndoD1M5yGU3JLYdiv3pg 4vKP6VSD20pSHMp1HiCguTl44VTkNgW0ZH923CaPOoN8K13SvdsUDJTx9rK3YdrJbb9o EkHCoLoCyCmdt/eLI9mEQnU6793QBOXdtcO6i5PRHrN5S1Z7YXhibdj7I+1Vh5LIx+gf U+Ag== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUOBWjiu1QECkV5RZ5K2hmP4QBLLRAYMQ3DSF72iuJYctiK6YO2 xnK+Nc9xEAJi+SpA6eMtouE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdW66QlmfXRamFV9mkrKkKJAeeXPrYrYXpFwxDaE36N69R0m4sJgbJY73Z7PYld5vNOr57DQ== X-Received: by 2002:a24:8583:: with SMTP id r125mr21879330itd.69.1557238785475; Tue, 07 May 2019 07:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from archbookpro.localdomain ([2620:101:f000:780:ed13:bfd5:1bea:adb7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j16sm4811076iok.64.2019.05.07.07.19.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 May 2019 07:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 10:19:42 -0400 From: Denton Liu To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] teach branch-specific options for format-patch Message-ID: <20190507141942.GA359@archbookpro.localdomain> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Junio, On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:56:00PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu writes: > > > Currently, format-patch only accepts branch..description as a > > branch-specific configuration variable. However, there are many other > > options which would be useful to have on a branch-by-branch basis, > > namely cover letter subject and To: and Cc: headers. > > > > Teach format-patch to recognise these branch-specific configuration > > options. > > > > Note that this patchset[1] was created using these new configuration > > options: > > > > [branch "submitted/fix-revisions-txt"] > > coverSubject = "cleanup revisions.txt" > > cc = "Andreas Heiduk " > > cc = "Duy Nguyen " > > cc = "Junio C Hamano " > > Do we have format. configuration for these things? Currently, we have format.{to,cc} but not format.coverSubject. The reason why is that for the cover-subject, I didn't think that it would make a lot of sense to have a general configuration for this since it varies between branches, just like how branch..description does not have a matching format.description. > > What I am trying to get at is if these are better structured similar > to http options where http. supplies the overall default > for , while http.. gives a more > destination site specific override of that default. I.e. format.cc > is used as fallback, while format..cc is used to override. The reason why I chose to use branch..* is because format-patch currently reads from branch..description and I wanted to build on top of that. In addition, I didn't want to scatter branch-specific configs in two different place (i.e. have a branch..description alongside a format..coverSubject). > > In any case, it smells to me that branch..cc does not hint > strongly enough that they are meant to affect format-patch. > > Would you suggest moving to a format..* approach or would it make sense to rename the configs to something like branch..{emailCoverSubject,emailTo,emailCc}? Thanks, Denton