From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Suppressing auto-cc for specific addresses Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 01:01:41 -0600 Message-ID: <20110809070141.GA13623@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4E3EF38A.9010307@gmail.com> <20110807234634.GA3236@kroah.com> <20110808204448.GF18294@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110808210714.GA16512@elie.gateway.2wire.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Daniel Mack , David Aguilar , Greg KH , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 09 09:01:56 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 1QqgK2-0002vi-Lm for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:01:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752332Ab1HIHBp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:01:45 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:37166 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423Ab1HIHBo (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:01:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 3269 invoked by uid 107); 9 Aug 2011 07:02:20 -0000 Received: from S010690840de80b38.ss.shawcable.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (70.64.172.81) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 03:02:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 09 Aug 2011 01:01:41 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110808210714.GA16512@elie.gateway.2wire.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 11:07:14PM +0200, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I'm kind of confused why you would mark an address as "cc", but not cc > > it. Wouldn't it make sense to call the header something else? > > Maybe the patch is a draft and he is seeking early feedback. The > final version will be cc-ed to the indicated person later (and that's > part of what it is time to get feedback on). I suspect in that workflow, you would use --suppress-cc=all, and then just address it to whomever you are getting feedback from. > Or maybe the Cc: line is from the original patch and he is using git > send-email to forward it without mangling. In that case, shouldn't the cc either be respected (since the original patch author wanted it so), or stripped (if the patch no longer has anything to do with that cc). Still, we are only guessing at possible workflows here. I don't have a problem with the idea of per-address suppression; it makes git more flexible and doesn't hurt people who don't need the flexibility. I was more objecting to it as a solution to a workflow that is "we want a unique tag in the commit, so we called it 'cc', but don't want people to actually 'cc' it". That's just wrong and silly. But it turns out that isn't happening here, anyway. -Peff