Re: [PATCH] git-send-email.perl: fix In-Reply-To for second and subsequent patches

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:22:50 -0500
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] wrote:

(+cc: some send-email people)

For the new recipients, the original mail is here btw:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/159039

More comments below.

Hi,

Antonio Ospite wrote:

quoted

Make second and subsequent patches appear as replies to the first patch,
even when an initial In-Reply-To is supplied

[...]

quoted

Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite <redacted>

Thanks.

Thanks for commenting Jonathan.

quoted

  - When $initial_reply_to is asked to the user, it is asked as the
    "Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the _first_ email", this
    makes me think that the second and subsequent patches are not using
    it

This kind of justification belongs in the commit message, no?
That way, we can save future readers the trouble of figuring out
the rationale all over again when considering future changes to this
code.

Ok, I can add this in the commit message, I am waiting some days for
v2, in case someone else has more to say.

quoted

--- a/git-send-email.perl
+++ b/git-send-email.perl

@@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
 
 	# set up for the next message
 	if ($thread && $message_was_sent &&
-		(chain_reply_to() || !defined $reply_to || length($reply_to) == 0)) {
+		($message_num == 1 || chain_reply_to() || !defined $reply_to || length($reply_to) == 0)) {
 		$reply_to = $message_id;

Would it be possible to break this long line?

I like the OR chain on the same line, but I can split it anyways if
that's the preference.

If you're feeling particularly adventurous, it would be nice to add a
test for the changed functionality to t/t9001-send-email.sh, so we
don't break it with other changes in the future.

No promises, but I might give that a try.

I haven't looked too deeply or even tried running applying the patch,
but generally it looks good to me.

Ciao,
Jonathan

Thanks,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?