On 10/23/23 14:51, Jeff King wrote:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 02:42:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

So here's the fix in a cleaned up form, guided by my own comments from
earlier. ;) I think this is actually all orthogonal to the patch you are
working on, so yours could either go on top or just be applied
separately.

  [1/3]: doc/send-email: mention handling of "reply-to" with --compose
  [2/3]: Revert "send-email: extract email-parsing code into a subroutine"
  [3/3]: send-email: handle to/cc/bcc from --compose message

Nice.

With the approach suggested to move the validation down to where the
necessary addresses are already all defined, Michael observed "whoa,
why am I getting stringified array ref?".  If that is the only issue
in the approach, queuing these three patches first and then have
Michael's fix on top of them sounds like the cleanest thing to do.

Patch coming soon.

I don't think it is even an issue in Michael's approach. I'd have to see
his patch and how he tested it to be sure, but I suspect he was simply
being extra careful to test nearby behavior and stumbled upon the
ARRAY() bug. But the bug was there long before either of his patches.

Thank you for your patches Peff!  I think it fixes the issue I was seeing.
I was trying to be extra careful with my testing.  I had missed testing
--compose and also the multiple --to/cc/bcc examples before.

quoted

Will queue on top of v2.42.0 to help those who may want to backport
these to the maintenance track.

So I think you could take my series on top of master (or 2.42.0), and
eventually target 'master'. The bug it fixes is from 2017, so not
urgent. The reading of "to" headers is a new feature.

But the fix to move the validation around should probably go directly
onto a8022c5f7b (send-email: expose header information to
git-send-email's sendemail-validate hook, 2023-04-19) for use on maint.
I guess maybe it is not that urgent anymore, as that regression is in
v2.41, and we would not release anything along that maint track anymore,
though.

-Peff