From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git send-email should not allow 'y' for in-reply-to Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:23:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20130111212325.GA18193@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" To: "Matt Seitz (matseitz)" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 11 22:23:50 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ttm4q-0007dA-0F for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:23:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754686Ab3AKVX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:23:28 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:57832 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753704Ab3AKVX1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:23:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 24703 invoked by uid 107); 11 Jan 2013 21:24:42 -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, 11 Jan 2013 16:24:42 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:23:25 -0500 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, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:13:57PM +0000, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote: > > > How about "What Message-ID to use as In-Reply-To for the first email?" > > > or "Provide the Message-ID to use as In-Reply-To for the first > > > email:". > > > > seem fine to me. Maybe somebody who has been confused by it can offer > > more. At any rate, patches welcome. > > Suggestion: "Message-ID to use as In-Reply-To for the first email:". > > Simple and unlikely to generate a "y" or "n" response. Putting > "Message-ID" first makes it more obvious what data is being asked for > by this prompt. You'd think. But the existing message that has been causing problems is: Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email? which is more or less what you are proposing. I do think a colon rather than a question mark helps indicate that the response is not yes/no. -Peff