Re: body-CC-comment regression

[Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>]

Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> writes:

> There is another option, namely to only accept a single address for tags
> in the body. I understand that being able to copy a CC-header to either
> the header section or to the command line could be useful, but I don't
> really see the point in allowing this in the tags in the body (a SoB
> always has one address, and so should a CC-tag).

I mostly agree for the SoB, but why should a Cc tag have only one email?

The "multiple emails per Cc: field" has been there for a while already
(b1c8a11c8024 released in 2.6.0, sept 2015), some users may have got
used to it. What you are proposing breaks their flow.

> And since this is a regression for something that has been working for
> years that was introduced by a new feature, I also think it's reasonable
> to (partially) revert the feature.

I'd find it rather ironic to fix your case by breaking a feature that
has been working for more than a year :-(. What would you answer to a
contributor comming one year from now and proposing to revert your
reversion because it breaks his flow?

All that said, I think another fix would be both satisfactory for
everyone and rather simple:

1) Stop calling Mail::Address even if available. It used to make sense
   to do that when our in-house parser was really poor, but we now have
   something essentially as good as Mail::Address. We test our parser
   against Mail::Address and we do have a few known differences (see
   t9000), but they are really corner-cases and shouldn't matter.

   A good consequence of this is that we stop depending on the way Perl
   is installed to parse emails. Regardless of the current issue, I
   think it is a good thing.

2) Modify our in-house parser to discard garbage after the >. The patch
   should look like (untested):

--- a/perl/Git.pm
+++ b/perl/Git.pm
@@ -903,11 +903,11 @@ sub parse_mailboxes {
        my (@addr_list, @phrase, @address, @comment, @buffer) = ();
        foreach my $token (@tokens) {
                if ($token =~ /^[,;]$/) {
-                       # if buffer still contains undeterminated strings
-                       # append it at the end of @address or @phrase
-                       if ($end_of_addr_seen) {
-                               push @phrase, @buffer;
-                       } else {
+                       # if buffer still contains undeterminated
+                       # strings append it at the end of @address,
+                       # unless we already saw the closing >, in
+                       # which case we discard it.
+                       if (!$end_of_addr_seen) {
                                push @address, @buffer;
                        }
 
What do you think?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/