Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The "Subject:" is very often used in the wild, when responding to an >> existing discussion thread with a patch, without changing the topic of the >> thread (I would say it is used more than "From: " override). > > Hmm, but that is different, isn't it? > > AFAIK people use this format: > > --- > $headers > > Message > > Patch (format-patch output: headers, commit message, diff) > --- > > In this case 'git am' would ignore the patch headers. The only way > 'git am' would override $headers, is if the first part of the body has > new headers: > > --- > $headers > > $patch_headers > > $patch_commit_message > > $patch_diff > --- > > IOW; if there's no message at the beginning of the body. Your notation is a bit unclear to me, but I take that $headers mean the e-mail headers, and $patch_headers mean what we often call "in-body" headers; in other words, your patch is "duplicate my authorship in $patch_headers because my MSA/MTA mangles my name in $headers." Am I following you well so far? What I meant to say was that perhaps the approach can help the same class of issues where other fields in $headers can be corrupted and the user wants duplicate in "in-body", assuming that it is less likely to be eaten, and non-ASCII subject was one example that immediately came to my mind. So in that sense, it is not much a different issue. > I can't foresee that, but I guess we can do it anyway. So which would > be the fields to repeat? From, Date, and Subject? I would say From and Subject are equally worth considering. -- 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