On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 09:17:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > That is a good question. That confirmation step does come after they >> > have typed their cover letter. However, if they are using --compose, >> > they are dumped in their editor with something like: >> > >> > From Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> # This line is ignored. >> > GIT: Lines beginning in "GIT:" will be removed. >> > GIT: Consider including an overall diffstat or table of contents >> > GIT: for the patch you are writing. >> > GIT: >> > GIT: Clear the body content if you don't wish to send a summary. >> > From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> >> > Subject: >> > In-Reply-To: >> > >> > which I think would count as sufficient notice of the address being >> > used. >> >> OK. Tentatively I replaced your old series with these 8 patches >> including the last one, as I tend to agree with the value the >> earlier clean-up in the series gives us in the longer term. As you >> and Felipe discussed, we may want to replace the last one with a >> simpler "don't bother asking" patch, but I think that is more or >> less an orthogonal issue. > > I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about > exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with > Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may > not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may > want it). Well, who is using user_ident_sufficiently_given() in the first place? I think 'git commit' might be suffering from the same problem that prompted you to split it. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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