Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: Add ability to cc: any "trailers" from commit message

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 10:54 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:
> > 
> > Many commits have various forms of trailers similar to
> >      "Acked-by: Name " and "Reported-by: Name "
> > 
> > Add the ability to cc these trailers when using git send-email.
> I thought you were asking what we call these " followed by
> " at the end of the log message, and "footers or trailers"
> was the answer.
> 
> I do not have a strong objection against limiting to "-by:" lines;
> for one thing, it would automatically avoid having to worry about
> "Bug-ID:" and other trailers that won't have e-mail address at all.
> 
> But if you are _only_ picking up "-by:" lines, then calling this
> option "trailers" is way too wide and confusing.  I do not think
> there is any specific name for "-by:" lines, though.  Perhaps you
> would need to invent some name that has "-by" as a substring.
> 
> "any-by"?  or just "by"?  I dunno.

Thinking about this a little, "bylines" seems much better.

> >@@ -1545,7 +1545,7 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
> >  	# Now parse the message body
> >  	while(<$fh>) {
> >  		$message .=  $_;
> > -		if (/^(Signed-off-by|Cc): (.*)$/i) {
> > +		if (/^(Signed-off-by|Cc|[^\s]+[_-]by): (.*)$/i) {
> Micronits:
> 
>  (1) do you really want to grab a run of any non-blanks?  Don't
>      you want to exclude at least a colon?

It could use [\w_-]+

>  (2) allowing an underscore looks a bit unusual.  

It's for typos.  A relatively high percentage of
these things in at least the kernel were malformed
when I started this 5 years ago.

I don't have an objection to requiring the proper
form using only dashes though.

Maybe that'd help reduce the typo frequency anyway.

> I am aware of the fact that people sometimes write only a name with
> no e-mail address when giving credit to a third-party and we want to
> avoid upsetting the underlying MTA by feeding it a non-address.
> 
> Looking at existing helper subs like extract_valid_address and
> sanitize_address that all addresses we pass to the MTA go through,
> it appears to me that we try to support an addr-spec with only
> local-part without @domain, so this new check might turn out to be
> too strict from that point of view, but on the other hand I suspect
> it won't be a huge issue because the addresses in the footers are
> for public consumption and it may not make much sense to have a
> local-only address there.  I dunno.
> 
> > 
> >  			push @cc, $c;
> >  			printf("(body) Adding cc: %s from line '%s'\n",

me either but I think it doesn't hurt because
as you suggest, these are supposed to be public.

Thanks for the review.

cheers, Joe