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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_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 C061F202F2 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751937AbdKVKoo (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 05:44:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57408 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbdKVKon (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 05:44:43 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60B0BFD3A; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 05:44:42 -0500 (EST) 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=4NtBE5Kc5Y+w3FHnpPwtp9dLZWY=; b=f1qel4 kFPLjdJwJXZ18+IF9f/EEEl4oboREPJJ6m++tXE4KnpD3rjtgh/WAKwnCVPAlEOJ OlDb3dc+Kc33/5BskDxKBeOwkfua69aYRw3g0h7tTiwQaF7GJr5Wuli7QfRh2W9f +G/gKevivsVRf8Z3eEZ4QBRRwVRXy/T7HEyk4= 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=Z/j8gLvX1BV4iGEPK8Rk4OvpKI5P0oOh 7LrCDf137S0dxOydT+EqAtIuhvgse8FyaMgiTVmG6Y2eTHoOHaztb6+Z+/SP135x LJaW0/w7ffxF2UwjPpZVAw1CSvb/cA0sx6KwyFfjAS5Eq4RXXsmgCq+5hp6JZ1pD KrkPAX536q0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC23ABFD39; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 05:44:42 -0500 (EST) 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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F49BBFD38; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 05:44:42 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Matthieu Moy Cc: Thomas Adam , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Eric Sunshine , Git List , Matthieu Moy , Remi Lespinet Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: fix get_maintainer.pl regression References: <20171116154814.23785-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <87wp2jwe9o.fsf@linaro.org> <20171121205206.fvwjkkwhil4abmmk@laptop> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:44:41 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Matthieu Moy's message of "Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:22:05 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25B71E52-CF72-11E7-BEBD-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matthieu Moy writes: > My point in cc907506 ("send-email: don't use Mail::Address, even if > available", 2017-08-23) was not that Mail::Address was bad, but that > changing our behavior depending on whether it was there or not was > really bad. For example, the issue dealt with in this thread probably > always existed, but it was present only for *some* users. Yes, I understand and agree with you that having a single implementation would make things simpler for both users and bug wranglers than two sperate implementaions with two different sets of glitches. I am just wondering if we picked the right one back then, given this thread; that's all.