From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4391F955 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 19:01:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754784AbcHATBE (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:01:04 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64259 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754790AbcHATBB (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:01:01 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EA63219E; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 14:59:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=gq4hVyiwflArRx+lvfpf51M/uvc=; b=XpMcWw ZMv2opcLHsgufsFj6OUS9zJNcjo64erpFHCOs6REIaGUNduTtn7VlDDnc6FsiIjn /1UnXSGCGrH239S3LbnyUP0DVyjX5cNw3WqLnfigfsPwn05KCvyKiobKGOP7IHww 75Ah5lW3BaUmcCuZGJQKSN+hw4q1jQk06jyKc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=io/Sb1bYkBlWMTrZYf9INe/5CCGeaWaS dB2pOFL06j48hjuyhaaY7ZD4WPYT0DSjUtcpvxweWadjuA9w2bkVyfyAzLEgWU5W gKAlChmDb+m9VoMJF65//8jf2tsx0ZcsmKYIgzjVzPlw1wdUSYFpcx6fd/SRl4YR SBaS+lqiAV8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C553219D; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 14:59:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD13C3219C; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 14:59:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Josh Triplett , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] git-format-patch: default to --from to avoid spoofed mails? In-Reply-To: <20160801174316.4boo4slop77mtry4@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:43:16 -0400") References: <20160728211149.GA371@x> <20160728215603.GA22865@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160729001618.GA9646@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160729020801.GA14892@x> <20160729225800.GA23268@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160730045055.e3t6tpgi6zch4epo@x> <20160730054742.iwmr4pavdy5z73rw@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160801174316.4boo4slop77mtry4@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:59:50 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 22D0ACBA-581A-11E6-941D-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I half-agree. Config that causes unpredictable behavior can break > somebody else's script that you are running. If you say "oh, I guess I > shouldn't set that config" and move on with your life, then the config > hasn't really hurt anybody. If you complain to the script author that > their script is broken, and insist that they pass the --no-foo option, > then the script writer does not care much whether it was a config option > or a change of default. Hmph, I never considered that POV but you are right. I am not sure if that argues that we have to be even more careful not to add non-essential configuration variable, or that we can afford to be much less careful when changing the default, though. A little bit of both, I guess.