On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Right. I thought I might fix something here to improve a widely anticipated workflow, but as it turns out, it's not actually needed. I don't personally have any other use for this feature, so I don't care much whether it will be applied eventually. Except for the fact that it would be my first contribution to git, of course ;) So - up to you to decide. Thanks, Daniel -- 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