Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 06/08/2016 07:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n",
>>> + $1) unless $quiet;
>>
>>> + printf("Adding to: %s from To: header\n",
>>> + $addr) unless $quiet;
>>
>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n",
>>> + $addr) unless $quiet;
>>> push @cc, $addr;
>>
>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from Cc: header\n",
>>> + $_) unless $quiet;
>>
>> These make the end result prettier by not repeating the same address
>> twice, but is it just me who finds these inexplicable case
>> differences irritating? Shouldn't these field references in the
>> result mirror the field references in the origin of the information?
>
> It makes sense only in the case below...
>
>>> + printf("Adding cc: %s from From: header\n",
>>> + $1) unless $quiet;
>
> ... because the sender should receive its own copy (at least to avoid
> breaking threaded view in his mailer) and be cc-ed. By the way, we
> should cc the sender when sending the cover letter too for the same
> reason.
>
> But in other cases, it seems pointless to display identical field
> reference twice.
My comment may have been a bit too oblique. What I meant was
Adding cc: Samuel from From: header
looked strange, and I thought it would be better written
Adding Cc: Samuel from From: header
Same for
Adding to: Samuel from To: header
being strange, and a better version of it would be
Adding To: Samuel from To: header
--
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