From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: git-mailinfo munges the patch? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7v1wj74xck.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070329205357.GF11029@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Don Zickus X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 29 23:19:45 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HX221-0004nQ-J8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:19:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030739AbXC2VTi (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:19:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030745AbXC2VTi (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:19:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:39615 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030739AbXC2VTi (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:19:38 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l2TLJRU2031567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:19:27 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l2TLJQEH012352; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:19:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070329205357.GF11029@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.462 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Don Zickus wrote: > > Ok. I see what you are saying with the old code. Sorry about that. Do > you have a sample file that I can play with to test my fix? On that note - here's an unrelated simple case that the old mailinfo got right, but the new one seems to screw up: multiple Subject: lines. The old one would make later Subject: lines override the earlier ones, and I depended on that when I fix up peoples emails to me manually (you wouldn't believe how bad explanations or subject lines people use for perfectly good patches ;) The current mailinfo seems to just take the first one. Linus