From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08F7C433E6 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FC42080C for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=cmpwn.com header.i=@cmpwn.com header.b="E2v4wq4N" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727797AbgH0XYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:24:48 -0400 Received: from mail.cmpwn.com ([45.56.77.53]:48076 "EHLO mail.cmpwn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726289AbgH0XYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:24:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cmpwn.com; s=cmpwn; t=1598570687; bh=pkozSSlL4ahHEU8tUX+qG34dDBAUg/+gZtlGenxKUGQ=; h=Cc:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To; b=E2v4wq4NMB9NU+82DxDSFWz7fN2iJiKxvuBdM2Dq2g28CZiCMTrK0ETBfe4CuwmTT 3tdv31JZH5Oh1rJqkX8VOjvc7kXgMRRwSBsI0Wj5Zh6gvsK/WqdvDm971z0SQ2W76+ TZ7XQ9OqdItpvR6ngqY6uxdAK4Sb/6sAqkWxK4dM= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: =?utf-8?q?Carlo_Marcelo_Arenas_Bel=C3=B3n?= , Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: do not prompt for In-Reply-To From: "Drew DeVault" To: "Junio C Hamano" Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:24:14 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu Aug 27, 2020 at 7:23 PM EDT, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Carlo and I were discussing how best to describe the behaviour we > have better to the users, which is unrelated to any code change that > would be required to "make it harder make it easier." > > We need to do so to help users in the meantime, before any behaviour > change (which need to happen over several releases, as outlined > earlier) happens. Ah, I see what you mean. I'll add some messaging like that in my v2, but the point's likely moot anyway since I expect to have the patch ready for the next release.