Re: Fw: [PATCH 31/49] PCI: PCI/Cardbus cards hidden, needs pci=assign-busses to fix

Greg KH [off-list ref] writes:

I'm using:
	git format-patch -n origin..HEAD
to generate the raw patch files, and then:
	git-send-email --in-reply-to "<some_message_id>" --to some_mailing_list@somewhere.com

fixing the obvious message id and mailing list address to be the correct
one depending on the subsystem the patches are from.

I think format-patch does the right thing (I wrote it), but I am
not sure what send-email does wrt the From: header.  Who wrote
the send-email anyway?  I see your name on it ;-)

The cleanest way send-email should handle a patch authored by
somebody other than you, I think, is to still use From: to name
the author (format-patch output records the author on From:
line), and use Sender: of the outgoing e-mail to record that the
message is from you.  I suspect it probably doesn't.

The second best would be to add the duplicated From: to name the
author (who is _not_ you) to the top of the body of the message.
I do not particularly like that format myself, though.  Sender:
header was invented to send an e-mail authored by somebody other
than the sender of the message at the mail transport level, long
before Documentation/SubmittingPatches were written and git was
invented, and somehow I think that is a more kosher way to
handle that than the "extra From: at the beginning of the
message" clutch recommended in SubmittingPatches document.  

On the acceptance side, "git am" (or "git applymbox") should be
able to handle either format.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

The second best would be to add the duplicated From: to name the
author (who is _not_ you) to the top of the body of the message.
I do not particularly like that format myself, though.  Sender:
header was invented to send an e-mail authored by somebody other
than the sender of the message at the mail transport level, long
before Documentation/SubmittingPatches were written and git was
invented, and somehow I think that is a more kosher way to
handle that than the "extra From: at the beginning of the
message" clutch recommended in SubmittingPatches document.  

The email I received from Greg had no Sender: header at all.  I could find
no indication of who authored the patch in that email.

The convention of adding the From: to the top of the body of the changelog
is explicit and simple - I think it's a reasonable thing to do.

We wouldn't want to attempt to mix this concept up with email envelopes or
email headers or anything like that.  The authorship is an attribute of the
patch, and has nothing to do with how it was transported, stored or
anything like that.