From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494EF20989 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755083AbcJMPlM (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:41:12 -0400 Received: from ikke.info ([178.21.113.177]:45198 "EHLO vps892.directvps.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756127AbcJMPlG (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:41:06 -0400 Received: by vps892.directvps.nl (Postfix, from userid 1008) id D09854401D4; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:33:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:33:17 +0200 From: Kevin Daudt To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Matthieu Moy , Larry Finger , Mathieu Lienard--Mayor , Remi Lespinet , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Formatting problem send_mail in version 2.10.0 Message-ID: <20161013153317.GA1698@ikke.info> References: <20161010215711.oqnoiz7qfmxm27cr@sigill.intra.peff.net> <45cfc4e5-c30e-19cb-ec3e-407ceb4e3ad5@lwfinger.net> <5978b674-02eb-59ad-9468-93203533575f@lwfinger.net> <20161012231321.ar2csdmvhdya2q7r@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161012231321.ar2csdmvhdya2q7r@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Matthieu Moy writes: > > > > >>> If it's not in the body of the message, then where is it? > > >> > > >> This point is clarified in the thread > > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=147625930203434&w=2, which is > > >> with my upstream maintainer. > > > > > > Which explicitly states that the syntax is not [$number], but # $number, > > > right? > > > > But I do not think that works, either. Let's step back. > > > > People write things like these > > > > Cc: Stable # 4.8 > > Cc: Stable [4.8+] > > > > in the trailer part in the body of the message. Are these lines > > meant to be usable if they appear as Cc: headers of an outgoing > > piece of e-mail as-is? > > I think the answer is pretty clearly no. It's just that historically we > have auto-munged it into something useful. I think the viable options > are basically: > > 1. Tell people not to do that, and to do something RFC compliant like > "Stable [4.8+]" . This is a little funny > for git because we otherwise do not require things like > rfc-compliant quoting for our name/email pairs. But it Just Works > without anybody having to write extra code, or worry about corner > cases in parsing. > > 2. Drop everything after the trailing ">". This gives a valid rfc2822 > cc, and people can pick the "# 4.8" from the cc line in the body. Comments, surrounded by parenthesis are allowed after the ">" according to the RFC, just plain dropping everything comming after that would break that support.