From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: add proper default sender Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:50:52 -0800 Message-ID: <20121115015052.GA19131@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20121113032727.GA8387@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121113040104.GA9361@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121113074720.GA18746@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121113164845.GD20361@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121115000726.GA16910@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 15 02:51:10 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TYobl-0007Zk-Mn for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:51:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992597Ab2KOBu4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:50:56 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:48913 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992580Ab2KOBuz (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:50:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 10325 invoked by uid 107); 15 Nov 2012 01:51:44 -0000 Received: from 204-16-157-26-static.ipnetworksinc.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (204.16.157.26) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:51:44 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:50:52 -0800 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:41:50AM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > But that I meant that when I introduce a regression it's like I'm > killing all that is good and sacred about git, and when you do it's > everything but that. The rhetoric in this statement is a good indication that there is nothing productive to come from our discussing it anymore. > > If you want to seriously propose changing the behavior of "git commit", > > I think the best thing would be to make a real patch, laying out the > > pros and cons in the commit message, and post it. I would not be > > surprised if the other list participants have stopped reading our thread > > at this point, and the idea is going otherwise unnoticed. > > I would, if I saw any chance in it actually going through. Well, it certainly will not go through if you do not try. -Peff