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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 BDD311F45F for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726291AbfEGI4I (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 04:56:08 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:59981 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726063AbfEGI4H (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 04:56:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8894FE79; Tue, 7 May 2019 04:56:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=OwR06jhOZPqkSMOjz4gBrw9ESVw=; b=pQKsK9 HAAAduQ5EZRZXxEt5i0xLTNDQ/CnIz9uX+9+3kAvCcE+39F/gmg16r8rgo+UKuqU 0t7kXB744uyGxqVBYgQu9LDo1Z2q6UOXT5+Ez05Ms9IYCi5x2+6fbhmh+p3S5Yqd Kamg5SfptjORrfAUZt/VWCWoLwMIqjzE8BuMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=cmr7qHP4WMZnITRX99kfMY35iV3Jk3b3 Jo1poT4wVr+N0jdFewD4PRlTIz+x2r3DV0RrPjC/KxtGD8l0m13EZ9vdgjD20D/S yzmZ4mRhqqyInn4nkKKEF5chCzDJwt47gXZSOmy0iahF0Lx+9sLyuYDmbnSLWO3b Gh0y9b2+dLY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72314FE78; Tue, 7 May 2019 04:56:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.255.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D60E94FE73; Tue, 7 May 2019 04:56:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Denton Liu Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] teach branch-specific options for format-patch References: Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 17:56:00 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Denton Liu's message of "Sun, 5 May 2019 12:24:26 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F1213278-70A5-11E9-8982-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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? 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. In any case, it smells to me that branch..cc does not hint strongly enough that they are meant to affect format-patch.