From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike Gant" Subject: Re: [idea] Re: separate .git dir and the working tree Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:57:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20110207045757.GC13594@mg1> References: <20110205032339.GA15303@mg1> <20110205132708.GA18391@elie> <20110206002009.GA13594@mg1> <20110206004013.GB13594@mg1> <20110206105510.GA14195@vidovic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: redstun , Jonathan Nieder To: Nicolas Sebrecht , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 07 05:58:19 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PmJB4-00033q-6e for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:58:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751937Ab1BGE6B (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2011 23:58:01 -0500 Received: from gantsfort.com ([64.66.245.199]:57891 "EHLO mail.gantsfort.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751745Ab1BGE6A (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2011 23:58:00 -0500 Received: from mg1 (mg1.gantsfort.com [192.168.0.10]) by mail.gantsfort.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F3A5417E0C; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:57:57 -0700 (MST) Received: by mg1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:57:57 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Nicolas Sebrecht , git@vger.kernel.org, redstun , Jonathan Nieder Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110206105510.GA14195@vidovic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > The 05/02/11, Mike Gant wrote: > > > So does anyone use Mutt? And do they know a recipe to move the sender > > address to the cc list? If not, I'll figure it out. > > g (group answer). > Thanks. I knew about L (list reply) and g (group reply). L only replies to the list address, git@vger.kernel.org, in this case. Certainly, g is the closest behavior as long as it is acceptable to have the sender name in the To: header along with the list address (as in this response). On the other hand, if it is only acceptable to have the list address in the To: header and all others in the cc list then I don't know of any command to do that. -Mike