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=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 6052F203E1 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751891AbcGXPvm (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:51:42 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:58398 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584AbcGXPvl (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:51:41 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17976286ED; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:51:40 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=fwq9d2/7u4clLohUNYEbcpnZwPE=; b=UI8MN0 lsmMM97kqNqddv3XHGurxrMquBqF9hmp23wG/JGiDmojKJQ404d11r18Gj8sZYdl pxBIM+byoa5RB8irmMzr6Np42Kfwy088meMST6JPHIrzDLCU+f5BOXwINsujFZuN 4pY+V6wHb/23BDqnMkUeGhceBAR2m37v1dBWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NxItUZQgF9/Y4URYUBtutlEslXSXLDJO ehBGQYnn/W3voSqvLuY8RA38UUpRJpW8kd8e/6vJpFFuJMCdvrYXf5sP++5vg5e4 XqVsyqvD+bVjQWBdoxw3ozZXGd7uZ2oBjpthSmlnaOS5sh1AZ7Ytu12dQvyN10yX CpEqtzCnugA= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2202286EB; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D230286EA; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:51:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Wong Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: escape "From " lines recognized by mailsplit References: <20160722224739.GA22961@whir> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:51:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:11:58 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8255BDFC-51B6-11E6-BADB-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Eric Wong writes: > >> Users have mistakenly copied "From " lines into commit messages >> in the past, and will certainly make the same mistakes in the >> future. Since not everyone uses mboxrd, yet, we should at least >> prevent miss-split mails by always escaping "From " lines based >> on the check used by mailsplit. >> >> mailsplit will not perform unescaping by default, yet, as it >> could cause further invocations of format-patch from old >> versions of git to generate bad output. Propagating the mboxo >> escaping is preferable to miss-split patches. Unescaping may >> still be performed via "--mboxrd". > > As a tool to produce mbox file, quoting like this in format-patch > output may make sense, I would think, but shouldn't send-email undo > this when sending individual patches? Also, doesn't it break "git rebase" (non-interactive), or anything that internally runs format-patch to individual files and then runs am on each of them, anything that knows that each output file from format-patch corresponds to a single change and there is no need to split, badly if we do this unconditionally? IOW, shouldn't this be an optional feature to format-patch that is triggered by passing a new command line option that currently nobody is passing?