The 15/07/09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@xxxxxx> writes: > > So I do not think there is any breakage that rejects good input with his > patch. Exact. It broke my workflow (at least) and was able to do it because the previous git-am was permiting it. Looking closer to the code made me understand where I was wrong. > I am not opposed to add support for individual pieces of e-mail without > forcing them to be in Berkeley mbox format. Not everybody uses mbox > format, and it is a logical thing to do. Also I do not think the amount > of new code necessary to do so is excessive, nor such a change is risky > even late in a cycle after -rc0. Will do, then. > I however _do_ have issues with labeling other's patch that did not break > any documented behaviour as a regression, even if it is to get extra > attention to the issue. That's not how we do things. Of course. As we was able to do more than documented, I did not see it in first place. It's a wrong assumption coming from my initial git-bisect, some "hidden" globbing shell, and my learning curve of the current code. It is _NOT_ in my intention to blame anyone. -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html