From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: Clear To: field for every mail Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:19:56 +0530 Message-ID: <4CA98724.2020203@st.com> References: <7v7hhya0yc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Junio C Hamano , "bebarino@gmail.com" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 04 09:50:27 2010 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 1P2foU-0000gA-77 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 09:50:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753225Ab0JDHuP (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2010 03:50:15 -0400 Received: from eu1sys200aog120.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.149]:58349 "EHLO eu1sys200aog120.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753136Ab0JDHuO (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Oct 2010 03:50:14 -0400 Received: from source ([138.198.100.35]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob120.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKTKmHKuD7JrzMOCobUtc07H0ShUznd0cg@postini.com; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:50:13 UTC Received: from zeta.dmz-ap.st.com (ns6.st.com [138.198.234.13]) by beta.dmz-ap.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 79D90105; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Webmail-ap.st.com (eapex1hubcas4.st.com [10.80.176.69]) by zeta.dmz-ap.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 63DE964D; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:49:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.199.16.92] (10.199.16.92) by Webmail-ap.st.com (10.80.176.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:49:58 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 In-Reply-To: <7v7hhya0yc.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 10/04/2010 12:39 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heh, are people who send patches with only S-o-b by your definition not > testing their patches at all ;-)? As far as I can tell, your patch > applied to 'next' will break t9001 rather badly. > > I agree there is a bug that you are trying to address in the series by > Stephen that keeps adding To: address that is read from an earlier output > of format-patch created with its --to option, but I do not think this is a > right fix. Have you tested sending a series with a plain format-patch > output without extraneous To:, Cc: and such headers? > > A normal send-email session takes the recipient address from either --to > or interactively upfront, and then use those addresses kept in @to > variable in the loop, repeatedly. I do not see anything in your patch to > avoid losing these addresses. Junio, Stephan, Ya! my patch wasn't good enough. I just tried to solve it the way it was done for cc. -- viresh