Excerpts from Junio C Hamano's message of Tue Jun 25 14:33:18 -0700 2013: > Andrew Pimlott <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Just reponding for the "procedual" part for now. > > > So if I don't want to break the discussion, should I append the unedited > > format-patch output to my message after "scissors", or should I send it > > as a whole new message with --in-reply-to? Or something else? I'll try > > the first. > > Which is fine, and you are almost there, but you do not want > > (1) "From 99023b..." that is not part of the message (it is a > delimiter between multiple patches when/in case a file contains > more than one); > > (2) "From: Andrew..." that is the same as the e-mail header in the > message I am responding to; > > (3) "Date: ..." which is older than the e-mail header in the > message I am responding to---the latter is the date people > actually saw this patch on the mailing list, so it is > preferrable to use it than the timestamp in your repository. > > So in this case, I'd expect to see, after the "-- >8 --" line, only > "Subject: " line, a blank and the log message. Thank you. It was not clear to me even after several doc readings what git-mailinfo would look for where. I think I assumed that the idea was to transmit the original commit perfectly, and I stubbornly failed to give up that assumption even when it clearly didn't fit. Everything makes more sense with the understanding that the receiver will pull together non-patch metadata in the way that makes sense from his point of view (and that a different commit will come back via fetch). I will take a whack at clarifying the docs if I have time. Andrew -- 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