From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] format-patch --signature-file Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:24:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20140520182443.GA30533@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1400572806-21092-1-git-send-email-jmmahler@gmail.com> <1400572806-21092-2-git-send-email-jmmahler@gmail.com> <20140520082740.GB27590@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jeremiah Mahler , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 20 20:24:53 2014 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 1WmoiX-0007kJ-Jf for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 20:24:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752085AbaETSYq (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 14:24:46 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:55933 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751755AbaETSYp (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 14:24:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 15260 invoked by uid 102); 20 May 2014 18:24:45 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 20 May 2014 13:24:45 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 20 May 2014 14:24:43 -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 Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:53:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I actually think these "supress extra LFs" trying to be overly smart > and inviting unnecessary surprises. Unlike log messages people type > (in which we do squash runs of blank lines and other prettifying), > mail-signature string is not something people keep typing, and it > would be better to keep it simple and consistent, i.e. we can > declare that the users who use non-default mail-signature can and > should learn to: > > --signature='this is the first line of my long sig > > with a blank line and then it ends here' > > and be done with it, I think. If it were just "--signature", I'd agree. After all, nobody is even complaining. But this is also in preparation for --signature-file. Should the user create a file without a trailing newline? We can special-case --signature-file to strip the final newline from the read file, but it seems friendlier to handle it at the printing stage (and then we handle the unlikely but possible --signature as above for free). I don't think it would adversely impact any real-world case, because somebody would have to: 1. already be including an extra trailing newline 2. really _want_ three newlines at the end > The trailing blank after the mail-signature is a different issue. I > think it is safe to remove it and I also think the result may look > better, but at the same time, it is very close to the "if we were > writing format-patch today, then we would..." category, I would say. Yeah. I think it is probably extraneous and would not hurt to remove. But it may not be worth worrying about (it's really the _two_ lines caused by the unconditional newline above that bugs me). -Peff