From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Christian Ludwig <chrissicool@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,
Nathan Payre <nathan.payre@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>,
Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>,
Timothee Albertin <timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>,
Daniel Bensoussan <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
Subject: Re: git-send-email: Support for Reply-To
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:06:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq371d7hlp.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180303235814.7241-1-chrissicool@gmail.com> (Christian Ludwig's message of "Sun, 4 Mar 2018 00:58:12 +0100")
Christian Ludwig <chrissicool@gmail.com> writes:
> this is the third iteration of this series. There was a request to
> rebase the changes on the refactoring patch b6049542 ("send-email:
> extract email-parsing code into a subroutine", 2017-12-15). This is
> the result.
Thanks. Let me Cc the party who did the refactoring, as it was
unclear how much value the change that did only refactoring without
having an actual user of the end result---now we do have code that
uses it.
> The diffstat is the same compared to the last revision. It could be
> made smaller by sacrificing readibility and breaking the scheme
> introduced by the refactoring patch. But I do agree that send-email's
> readability could benefit from slicing it into handy functions. And the
> refactoring patch reduces the nesting of loops/conditionals.
Thanks.
I compared the result of applying these on top of the refactoring
commit, and cherry-picking the previous round on top of the same
refactoring commit, and found that they pretty much result in the
same code (which was an exercise for me to gain confidence in this
code).
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-06 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-03 23:58 git-send-email: Support for Reply-To Christian Ludwig
2018-03-03 23:58 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] send-email: Rename variable for clarity Christian Ludwig
2018-03-03 23:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] send-email: Support separate Reply-To address Christian Ludwig
2018-03-06 8:06 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq371d7hlp.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=chrissicool@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr \
--cc=nathan.payre@etu.univ-lyon1.fr \
--cc=timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).