On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 11:07:14PM +0200, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I'm kind of confused why you would mark an address as "cc", but not cc > > it. Wouldn't it make sense to call the header something else? > > Maybe the patch is a draft and he is seeking early feedback. The > final version will be cc-ed to the indicated person later (and that's > part of what it is time to get feedback on). I suspect in that workflow, you would use --suppress-cc=all, and then just address it to whomever you are getting feedback from. > Or maybe the Cc: line is from the original patch and he is using git > send-email to forward it without mangling. In that case, shouldn't the cc either be respected (since the original patch author wanted it so), or stripped (if the patch no longer has anything to do with that cc). Still, we are only guessing at possible workflows here. I don't have a problem with the idea of per-address suppression; it makes git more flexible and doesn't hurt people who don't need the flexibility. I was more objecting to it as a solution to a workflow that is "we want a unique tag in the commit, so we called it 'cc', but don't want people to actually 'cc' it". That's just wrong and silly. But it turns out that isn't happening here, anyway. -Peff -- 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