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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 72A5F1F66E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 21:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726436AbgH1VAK (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:00:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51965 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726338AbgH1VAH (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:00:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4902685E0; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:00:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=36QDCwHsoZ3Hgl2wUjOEiXeeh9A=; b=XEeoKQ jAi3UcuEquUm+XnnFn0iiiN8/c/Pq/TUdnPWX2FFWzuz3G3f6S09/NLixNLSqsbm KkqZ2iFkE5LCLW92HXJDWascGR8UTGD7vs7yaXoU4uQLU1kIlKgm4wB19A/k8lTZ jwZD7u7yokTRoy+xMH5KjhFSeKn9BwA7Wba/U= 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=oyppYT7q6jl+vZzwD59OrQtw8HGe5Kie p31RghldPFngJJYBcfQa14VxpyQqTsRz48zbUIKCCgTrTvUTPuYJbaqhaYxRCKtR kUjycSQ3WrIix74NXZPAzdlrjLsZjpN2ZpVDRV6hDSEqU/N971w+PDLkv/PP0BX1 oV2rgS+agTw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A78685DE; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:00:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B40B1685D7; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:00:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Drew DeVault" Cc: Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: do not prompt for In-Reply-To References: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:00:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Drew DeVault's message of "Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:39:02 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 70945CE8-E971-11EA-A549-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Drew DeVault" writes: > "You can give an empty answer if you are not responding to any message" > could confuse users, because they might think -v2 is a "response", or > maybe they've written the patch in response to a discussion on the > -users mailing list, or any other number of reasons. "Type the value you would have given to --in-reply-to command line option (if you forgot to use it), or leave this field empty" perhaps? Those who do not know should be able to learn what "--in-reply-to" is. A prompt help is not the place to do a documentation. > I hate to be a nuisance over such a seemingly simple problem, but there > are a lot of new users who are struggling here and I care about their > struggle. What path should we take to fixing this issue for them? The ideal way would be to craft step (0) well enough so that new users trigger the To: prompt in the first place, which would automatically make the problem disappear ;-)