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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 8D9B3C433DF for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5635122BEB for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:08:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="oammRlrf" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727866AbgH0TIq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:08:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55754 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726009AbgH0TIp (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:08:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE759F6195; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:08:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=whsHjX0yh1BqjuyEOFpXZe+vfyo=; b=oammRl rfx/tZJMIJ8ulREg4jcty4ibNh8nSqwqlH78aOOjH8aZlkHB/e5yUwSX1Z5DLZzi zNMXH+K8RuGGwQkOJkwEa57aREBSa/ay33u8SC9obJ3Yy3OEsKi8XUKMPl8ixO5I oMX9U0eMg3jsDNVr7O34NSvJ9nQNCi/QTwLWI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=uLf5T2ER5Fhlhc3Qf5DOcw6DIscsFhkE d8yKbGMM13p/HaqKRo0Dtbt20j9sMsE3sK3jVml6SSNUIwlUvx9Njs3/5GKlrGQV cARGQekKJSfxsHM4If+wPVbMFjkM1wxg6vqDLGP2eWuA8XGAmkBTlQBnQdtOQmlm /+g/Bu9vLpQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5551F6194; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:08:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D190BF6193; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:08:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Drew DeVault Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-email: do not prompt for In-Reply-To References: <20200827175552.132193-1-sir@cmpwn.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:08:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2020 12:04:26 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B7740700-E898-11EA-A02D-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Drew DeVault writes: > >> Most mailing lists prefer that new patchsets and their revisions are >> placed into a new thread. Additionally, knowledge of what In-Reply-To >> means and where to find the Message-Id to fill in are domain-specific >> and confusing to new users. In the niche situations where this is called >> for, the --in-reply-to flag is sufficient. >> >> A config option, sendemail.promptInReplyTo, has been added to re-enable >> the old behavior. > > We do not break existing users' habits without a good reason, and a > subjective "this is the way I prefer" is *not* a good reason. Having said that (and I am not retracting anything I said in the message I am responding to), I haven't seen this prompt triggering for me when I use send-email, with or without --in-reply-to option on the command line. Admittedly I use a wrapper around "git send-email" to add minimum set of command line options that are always used (they are --from, --envelope-sender, and --smtp-server) but I do not think they have effect on the use of in-reply-to prompt. What are we doing differently, I wonder?