From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [BUG] format-patch does not wrap From-field after author name Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:45:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20110416014525.GA23306@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7v39lkiwoj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110414175034.GA23342@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110414214230.GB7709@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110414222940.GA19389@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110415033003.GB19621@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Erik Faye-Lund X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 16 03:45:46 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 1QAua0-0005bH-QM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 03:45:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755470Ab1DPBp2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:45:28 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:59966 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751018Ab1DPBp1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:45:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 15941 invoked by uid 107); 16 Apr 2011 01:46:19 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:46:19 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:45:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:32:27AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > >> I was just thinking of interpreting everything left of '<' literally > >> and encode it (if needed). Currently, we interpret the entire string > >> literally, encoding the name would an improvement. > > > > Won't that be a regression for people who already know that we take > > things literally and are manually quoting and/or rfc2047-encoding the > > contents? > > Yes. But won't that always be the case when someone depends on buggy behavior? I guess I don't see the current behavior as necessarily buggy, just sub-optimal. I can imagine people have worked around it by embedding rfc2047-encoded content manually. But I admit I don't really care that much, and I don't know what common use is. Grepping the list archives didn't turn up anything useful. > Besides, send-email takes interprets it's --to and --cc arguments as > well as sendemail.to and sendemail.cc config options literally (i.e > quoting if needed without any attempts on unquoting first). IMO having > two closely related programs with similar options that behave > different in border-cases is pretty ugly. ESPECIALLY when one of them > has a habit of forwarding unknown options to the other, like > send-email does... Yeah, it would be nice to resolve that inconsistency. -Peff