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-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 B45131F66E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 01:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728015AbgH1B5J (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:57:09 -0400 Received: from mail.cmpwn.com ([45.56.77.53]:48296 "EHLO mail.cmpwn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726147AbgH1B5J (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:57:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cmpwn.com; s=cmpwn; t=1598579828; bh=JHW43QfJ/EowQzj9SWL1ZUzmF1DVesLCWUS0fd7IdpQ=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To; b=shvvmmP13QqOL8K2ckR9ftXVc/7mixwfCc0KFiCOPvBwtyqzcIIajSV4F03LoRRRD S9MN6+5Lig4MbSkpwJtVFAhdlB2GKif0Swp6XvywLAVfRsg+6TElWCC5Wn1DnU4gwn Msi3e0ckCL2K5m2nxcRM0xYG9/xQOlfgX/GsoWmo= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: do not prompt for In-Reply-To From: "Drew DeVault" To: "Raymond E. Pasco" , "Junio C Hamano" Cc: =?utf-8?q?Carlo_Marcelo_Arenas_Bel=C3=B3n?= , Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 21:56:15 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu Aug 27, 2020 at 9:44 PM EDT, Raymond E. Pasco wrote: > Anyway, it's worth noting that, because the prompts *do* exist, > half-baked as they are, it's not really safe to assume that nobody sees > them. There might be a sizable population out there never specifying > "--to" because they know they'll be prompted for it. I hardly ever use --to for one-off patches or repositories which I'm not regularly contributing to, and I expect that prompt. In-Reply-To has a much less compelling argument, though, as Junio pointed out, given that it's often not necessary or desirable, whereas for "to", every email has to have at least one recipient to make sense.