Re: [PATCH v4] Thunderbird: fix appp.sh format problems

[Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>]

2012/9/4 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
> Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I don't have thunderbird now but actually it's really simple:
>>
>> Subject:
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> $SEP
>
> The above is not a very useful "example" to advance this discussion,
> I have to say.  For one, where is your Oggetto?

1) Where is your Oggetto?
I used english template simply because the question was about position
of each statement, but with translation the positions are the same.

2) Are these fields the only ones you will ever see?
No, the template is dynamic according to the settings of plug-in
"external editor". You can have
Subject, To, Cc, Ccn, In reply to, discussion group (please see
external editor for details).

3)  Are they always empty?
Yes. If they are empty, nothing happens actually. I mean, if you have
the field Cc: empty, in the message composition
Thunderbird will use an empty Cc: line, but no problem in sending.

>
> I would expect, at least when you are responding to an existing
> message, some of them are filled already (and if so, I think appp.sh
> wants to know exactly how, for example, has RFC2047 quoting already
> applied, or are we supposed to write in UTF-8 and let Thunderbird
> massage the contents when we give the file back to it?), and also
> there would appear In-Reply-To: field already filled (possibly there
> may be References: as well).

Message reply is out of scope of my patch. The goal here is send a
patch, so the execution flow is to open a new message,
clik on external editor (configured properly), select patch file and
send. It was the scope of the old script and it is the scope of my
patch. Usually you don't send a patch as reply, however even if you
want to send patch as proof-of-concept as reply, there is no
problem, you can copy&paste the patch body. The script, instead, is
very useful to load all patch info, pre-formatting it and filling with
all To: and Cc. So IMHO the in-reply-to case is simply overkilling for
this script. In addition, I think all this discussion is overkilling
for a simple script like that, if a thing can be improved ok I agree
to improve it, but what are we talking about? About a little script
that is only an external utility for this project, not a core
functionality.

Marco