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=-4.7 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 9FB061FBB0 for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 02:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752857AbcICCXJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:23:09 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54620 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751917AbcICCXH (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:23:07 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ECD3C366; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:23:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=/rNCDRnbCzimo+bKr/fwnxyocNU=; b=xIF+cIrkBaLMZX48w1u4 JuemYv/PalrNTeKBD9CpRwv1nV6F1bAOZm9nKlzO4QCcH+ONKLkHXN+9vlWo7KAy rBnBxPidBC2bXubaNASIr8MdR2Ka+SZLMl2n2tUxu3szFOJ2KMUiioDBUQMWVf5z s521V2aj/uBGMkUWnRw1/Xk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=PgA0I1XdVL5rPEHe6Y8QxKA7jeoen6fnXvrgYw9ImJ38JG 3mK04dkALTYzCs/YB3huozW71QwtNqX2a1eox10xOHxzXQBzaFATZG3pn/81vyvR cMBiTuCSMuBWeiTzF2HDwPjxr+s8BRKLq1Qmg6zlwveIuV5BIC9/rJQ3nfpnA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A82F3C365; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:23:06 -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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11F833C364; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:23:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sequencer: support folding in rfc2822 footer References: <1472846322-5592-1-git-send-email-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:23:04 -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: 5916B496-717D-11E6-9CF4-F7BB12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > Sample-field: multiple-line field body > that causes a blank line below I am not sure this is unconditionally good, or may cause problems to those with workflows you did not consider when you wrote this patch. Not being too lenient here historically has been a deliberate decision to avoid misidentification of non "footers". Does Git itself produce some folded footer line? If Git itself produced such folded lines, I'd be a lot more receptive to this change, but I do not think that is the case here. A slightly related tangent. An unconditionally good change you could make is to allow folding of in-body headers. I.e. you can have e.g. -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] sequencer: support in-body headers that are folded according to RFC2822 rules The first paragraph after the above long title begins here... in the body of the msssage, and I _think_ we do not fold it properly when applying such a patch. We should, as that is something that appears in format-patch output (i.e. something Git itself produces, unlike the folded "footer").