From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] blame: Improve parsing for emails with spaces Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:13:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20110429191355.GC27268@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1303423656-32002-1-git-send-email-jistone@redhat.com> <20110429131103.GB4540@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcxxvsz4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Josh Stone , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 29 21:14:04 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 1QFt8e-0002E8-0k for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:14:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760752Ab1D2TN6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:13:58 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:34170 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754567Ab1D2TN6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:13:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 15603 invoked by uid 107); 29 Apr 2011 19:15:39 -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, 29 Apr 2011 15:15:39 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:13:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vvcxxvsz4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:59:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Hmm. That address seems bogus, and I wonder if we should be rejecting it > > at commit time. Still, it is something we may run across in existing > > repositories, so handling it more gracefully makes sense. > > Perhaps but within reason. > > What new types of breakages are we proposing to tolerate, what breakages > are we declaring not worth fixing, and what is the price of not loosening > this? Without this patch, such a broken commit will result in the author > email shown somewhat broken, but the original is already broken to begin > with, and also the entry for the blamed line will come with its commit > object name anyway, so I do not think it is such a big deal. I'm pretty sure such an address would make a non-rfc822-compliant "from" header when used with format-patch. But given that it is obviously a bogus address, I don't think there's much we can do anyway, and anyone looking at will say "Oh, that's wrong". So it's probably not a big deal. -Peff