From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: Generalize auto-cc recipient mechanism. Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:32:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20071226053221.GA4499@old.davidb.org> References: <7vk5n2o58p.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1198641389-959-1-git-send-email-git@davidb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Joel Becker , Junio C Hamano To: Sean X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 26 06:32:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J7Osu-0005by-40 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:32:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751455AbXLZFcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:32:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751319AbXLZFcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:32:24 -0500 Received: from mail.davidb.org ([66.93.32.219]:56441 "EHLO mail.davidb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751219AbXLZFcX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:32:23 -0500 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.68 #1 (Debian)) id 1J7OsP-0001vp-9g; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:32:21 -0800 Mail-Followup-To: Sean , git@vger.kernel.org, Joel Becker , Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:54:38PM -0500, Sean wrote: >But i wonder about the case where a user has "sendemail.suppresscc = all" in their >~/.gitconfig. For the occasion when they do want to cc the author of >a patch, what do they do? The above UI seems to lack a way to enable a cc option >that has been disabled by default. Well, in that instance, --no-suppress-from would override that, if I did it right. Perhaps we could add an unsuppress-cc option, but then the whole thing is starting to get more complicated than I think it really needs to be. My suggestion would be to keep this patch as is, and if the people using it decide they want the override option, we/I can figure out how to add it. Dave