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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E266A1F8C6 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232970AbhHWVsQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 17:48:16 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:56899 "EHLO mout02.posteo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232503AbhHWVsO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 17:48:14 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703E7240103 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 23:47:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1629755249; bh=Z9/bA358mtvLvr4yugxkVaGaPOLj+psXgwOT+Eq5BQE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:From; b=q8N8XipnMkc5QVipuh+CziIBBaZQqqeReWL/8XpI+bwwGxfMoK6yo5mUyed9VENjx tQGphswDWRaVUA1pnE1w+bCDK32ANJcbB/qrpkI5Yv3s6sFJx2JrvbTTlb4T3XFkH4 8CH59hPFTO6lWMcQwaQAcuWteizlizZjrYnFcOfsm/7KC7Tjwf0Twd1jtlYnVkcJZn aq3Q2Mu2QmrpAkFZ3FTvd8+3AO0ml3O2GfSTKtcmzhmfTj3mPs0BDvkoG3LNfk5v2X UDxhfkPw7dgucMoEHyUWT91GDVDj+DfXsdwUYS1YTcUFyleN5Wp6oDdCTD5IQ7vPZP 2YK2/dMLeLxOQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Gtm746RkSz6tmN; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 23:47:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [BUG] send-email propagates "In-Reply-To" To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: <4db7759c-2123-533b-9f89-954c07f5832a@posteo.de> <5cd5a58b-ac9e-4628-a8d3-836b1f795732@posteo.de> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Marvin_H=c3=a4user?= Message-ID: <2412df60-f8ee-ab0f-08b2-20a0b6b641fa@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:47:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 23/08/2021 20:27, Jeff King wrote: > But either that should go into its own patch, or the commit message > should be modified to explain that it is covering not just > in-reply-to/references, but we think this fixes all similar variables. Fixed, opted for latter [1]. > You'd want something like the patch below (and possibly something > similar for the $subject handling). Thanks a lot! my last question for the patch would now be, how do I use your snippet? Do I add you to S-o-b of the single patch, do I split the patches with the second S-o-b being yours, or do I submit only the first and you will submit the second? > Both of the new tests fail without your patch and pass with it, but: > > - note the weird behavior I found with --in-reply-to; this is > something we might want to address at the same time I think this case must error? The definition of the "--in-reply-to" does not declare it as a default, so it must be enforced (and it is), but it's also very unintuitive the file value is discarded. Who would decide the behaviour spec? > - applying your patch fails the earlier t9001.52 ("In-Reply-To without > --chain-reply-to"). I didn't dig into what's going on there. Fixed [1]. Best regards, Marvin [1] https://github.com/mhaeuser/git/commit/5f2ff790cc0d0d779bc252b08f9c9c632c4ff01c