From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9783E47B for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.151 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770738425; cv=none; b=ZeMbVVuMhpqPRBukds0zBHP+LIjZoQLA7VV0FkDc2fhU/iJHYdLS3hqOOkpALAEZk7XqPWZUg//NOzpkG9xk4bzOhYgH+mqNc4rJwgFlB8IbxQaFXiGv8Za6VnUWHhNhN+WId5zhJ1plmDkxDvAvQ/MPqrAWvBO9UO6ah3bpNJU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770738425; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BnGC3huA+I7krgtuqe/HPpeWblA0Ej0BVLQbERO6YMI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ojjxsoIr3AiYemSoARJBW57Qqfx4kwHJMunAxjBtbWElx7/X0GTGsxCzlTQEd6mOgtvh5uL0GCMvjGjqlfy3suAxBcuAAIMhUze8zrxEyhBW/knwvzco+cKXl5Sux+H3hMtksHkfdKUr5TCpzZYk2TiCKwYLoO7ecNt5jAvCW1E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Q517VqcC; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=LxIdcxl0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.151 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Q517VqcC"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="LxIdcxl0" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DA1EC05A8; Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:47:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:47:03 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1770738423; x=1770824823; bh=b4cQO+SyD6 we+ztj+7UO/YIx8XO9RMYBeSoJBAvwMS8=; b=Q517VqcCqpfIhEI4OKY4r59f6b KW42zc/Ch90kpMCDc4H7AhUy+De4N2DhB30DMpkQb5HHt9+F/F5++BXwTTyp49bS 9Io0R36zALcezWDxWTfuoSpnBMSwFYpG9NKZsZ4tCGXWoeBdFNtmUdAONnVIvGPE s8o9tj0YXb277WygbDC6wisR74Ucg41OvNVBcHQ6yzszLy4Oyl6rnm/jXTkHnjFp MRd5zU6sxgVUXcmzYuhA7VchhsM4ERDhIJGJbEnv7uKYAMdppyQzbSFghoQMkiRe rbqHTdMOSadIIj+iX3dcNUq7VAACSB47/5/pFJAIatuqIYAXf6Def3RDoBhw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1770738423; x=1770824823; bh=b4cQO+SyD6we+ztj+7UO/YIx8XO9RMYBeSo JBAvwMS8=; b=LxIdcxl0QfOBg1V+x/4QqDc5yPcBK5A/d0qsENUOeeziXRDt8Hl JjtzrnClRMunqTl7123basZUttfKLj+8kinxNI/BhJJLm2sUhsvxiV6lxZazAfR6 2dxrSD3UlgcjJo4JaKoikYrGngDCSjRnPaDONewDTFZLj9/QU7E0KUe5xCrmeU24 WML5YM2qJ/DrLuQbHwp/1V8B2sZ7QafBKqBPYE3lkLmSHFulmDFYJqTiTWWLO/6t 9SM1KIwCpBVnWtC/DcEJdC1jEYAvMazmfIAbLROqmsc2T7AhWbYKnjMTm6mHTxLt j8Lid1tLnsV+WQTiSrrvGIsj5cyj7pMzCwg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddvtddttdekucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehjrggtoh gsrdhkvghllhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehpvghffhesphgvfhhf rdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgrihhlsegsvgihvghrmhgrthhthhhirghsrdguvgdprh gtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphih ohhkrghgrghnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:47:02 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Jacob Keller , Jeff King , Matthias Beyer , git@vger.kernel.org, pyokagan@gmail.com Subject: Re: git-am applies commit message diffs In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:22:55 +0100") References: <20260206090358.GA2761602@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:47:01 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > That is worth a thought indeed. I guess one of the biggest questions > here is whether we can introduce such an unambiguous mode in such a way > that old Git clients/patch(1) would continue to understand them. I > wouldn't mind much if they would still misinterpret the ambiguous parts. > But if so, we could make this unambiguous mode the default without a > breaking change. Yup, if the old versions misinterpret exactly the same way as before, then it does not even have to be called "unambiguous mode" that is on by default. I doubt it is possible, though. >> Obviously if you're sending the contents together, a malicious user >> could edit the formatted patch to move or copy whatever the >> "signifier" for patch vs commit separator is... but at least we'd >> prevent the cases where someone accidentally includes diffs without >> intending to. > > Well, if we had such an unambiguous mode I would say that eventually, > Git should start to refuse patches that have been generated without this > mode by default. Or any unsigned patch, perhaps?