From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl Wiberg Subject: Re: [StGit RFC PATCH 0/6] add support for git send-email Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:05:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20091128194056.949.88791.stgit@bob.kio> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: catalin.marinas@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Chiang X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 29 23:05:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NErtM-0002Pa-Tc for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:05:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753380AbZK2WFD (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:05:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753362AbZK2WFD (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:05:03 -0500 Received: from mail1.space2u.com ([62.20.1.135]:58335 "EHLO mail1.space2u.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753357AbZK2WFC (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:05:02 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.space2u.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nATM4muq029172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:04:48 +0100 Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so2123920bwz.21 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.49.79 with SMTP id u15mr3708510bkf.117.1259532307244; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:05:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091128194056.949.88791.stgit@bob.kio> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Alex Chiang wrote: > stg mail still has some nice features over git send-email, such > as the -v command line parameter and --prefix. Maybe at some point > in the future, we can migrate those features into git send-email and > continue thinning out stg mail. Yes. But note that we tend to be conservative and not require a too-new git, so a patch adding such a dependency would have to wait a while. (I'm currently carrying two such patches in my experimental branch.) > But I wanted to get some feedback first to make sure I'm going in the > right direction before going too much further. I've read the patches, and it looks about right from where I stand. Did you remember to run the regression tests? It's very helpful when reviewing to know that the regression suite passes at every point in the series. -- Karl Wiberg, kha@treskal.com subrabbit.wordpress.com www.treskal.com/kalle