Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I wonder if we can safely repurpose existing --in-reply-to option? In theory, obviously no as there can be a file with this name _and_ it can be a valid message-id. In practice, it is clearly unlikely. The only use-case I can think of where both would be valid is if the user happens to have saved the message using the message-id as filename. But then, the ambiguity would not harm, as the message-id contained in the file would be the same as the filename. > That is, if the value of --in-reply-to can be reliably determined as > a filename that has the message (as opposed to a message-id), we > read the "Message-Id:" from that file to figuire out what message-id > to use, and figure out To/Cc: to use for the purpose of your (1) at > the same time. This should work, but sounds like too much of overloading of --in-reply-to IMHO: if given a message id, it would only add a reference to this message-id, but if given a file, it would also modify the To: and Cc: list. Not a strong objection, though. > In the future, you might even teach send-email, perhaps via a user > configurable hook, a way to get to the message header and text given a > message-id, and when it happens, the same logic can be used when > --in-reply-to is given a message-id (i.e. you go from the id to the > message and find the addresses you would To/Cc: your message). That is the plan indeed. Fetching from gmane for example should be rather easy in perl, and would be really convenient! -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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