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=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,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 2231C1F45F for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726952AbfEGPqv (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 11:46:51 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f65.google.com ([209.85.208.65]:38070 "EHLO mail-ed1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726197AbfEGPqu (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 11:46:50 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f65.google.com with SMTP id w11so19188164edl.5 for ; Tue, 07 May 2019 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=x00MCxVDieeKfaprQbAR7jZL9pF/ID0vDLNmlHqec2k=; b=gI6FFmfUlzctw4Ooc0SNGgTkxFxiUCjYXlXuEyyz9gGQD7uZVgQwPLIj82+/nmIqoc dTJF2gX4zrJ8C5iERbeBBnFqe9xxKi+bugdlIPJzFRsBWjwnX5iIXmlgu0WgdE6GhDXC cF2snQtBhAXJD0Wfz1TZ4aKbWSxqcSceuDXNvMMxeQBQ2PRv+1byui4y84ZKNTmZzy7Q LBxw6++2KXsR5bR7t70e7Juw8BpTFLsDvZsium/rbnpkHLye4uirDHTLPKsmspGmDNVJ TWUnCd2MMThWv8wpmXgcgvHxgEtzX7ILDWLuBnMWZ271pQuoslDyjptm00cluUiR3qr/ 50TA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=x00MCxVDieeKfaprQbAR7jZL9pF/ID0vDLNmlHqec2k=; b=tpDMOic2lV7+uiqefO2cIXVjQJxRiCWrM8NRqH9ufRT7FReRbOd893OKWv7CC9VPug z4GtG9MefHQ2ChDYMoDn4HWhTYGkVafBiEbGvTtFtCr9RFk+zUIJjv/sM8XmG65R3kbX iV6rGRvNDsi8f7+Fciu8aUztl5Mbi2b3DY3QRDJm1ZEew44GNaS4KyL0viyTJVjsMjlH sfaAZ0j9skbsSGOcOOLXOD2mopJMZGe2687F5rS7SFJ+n7zY19af7D/T2cwoPS7axCjw eoYK4B7QccakNwpheTHwVTt/yxvK8Zstfbkh12R5YqrdCubwT8YpJktQARshs/cnQsD9 ndaA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrpqyN4ZzEZHGRdP2iTepaqtRoruJnqJyFly3Yr2YL5Vt38jHu XM3OS5qwscZtQj4AY79Wfj0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwVmewP+dvzvjoIrpIgdLLXmgAg7fbg++vE/ze7hQnYD8ZhlXKUdMslamYvXfJQJ+HEibYxKg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4bda:: with SMTP id x26mr25093253ejv.176.1557244008589; Tue, 07 May 2019 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar ([5.57.21.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm2186806ejb.71.2019.05.07.08.46.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 May 2019 08:46:47 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Denton Liu Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] teach branch-specific options for format-patch References: <20190507141942.GA359@archbookpro.localdomain> <20190507152118.GA12057@archbookpro.localdomain> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid; Emacs 26.1; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <20190507152118.GA12057@archbookpro.localdomain> Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87tve6gtcp.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 07 2019, Denton Liu wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 12:05:43AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Denton Liu writes: > > [snip] > >> > >> > Would you suggest moving to a format..* approach or would it >> > make sense to rename the configs to something like >> > branch..{emailCoverSubject,emailTo,emailCc}? >> >> So if I have to pick between the two, I would probably vote for the >> former from the philosophical ground, but operationally, I suspect >> that the latter would be much simpler to use. You could even have >> "git branch -d " to get rid of them at the same time. >> >> But as I may have hinted in the message you are responding to, I am >> not quite convinced we want these configuration variables in the >> first place. Why should both description and coverSubject need to >> exist? Perhaps we should add a heuristic like "If the branch >> description looks like a single line, optionally followed by 'a >> blank line and more paragraphs', use the first line as the subject >> of the cover letter (and the remainder as the body of the cover >> letter) or something? >> > > I considered doing something like that but I opted not to because it > wouldn't be a backwards compatible change and I didn't want to surprise > any future users with a change like this. > > For branch..{to,cc}, I wanted these config options because > the current method for format-patch to handle Cc-lists is just manually > keeping track of the people who have responded and entering them into > the --cc option of format-patch. This may just be more insanity to implement right now, but perhaps in addition to "gitdir:" etc. in the IncludeIf config syntax we'd want to aim for "HEADref" (or some saner name). I.e. allowing to include/enable arbitrary config based on the ref name. Chicken & egg problems though...