Samuel GROOT <samuel.groot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > @@ -647,10 +647,10 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ '--suppress-cc=all' ' > test_expect_success $PREREQ 'setup expect' " > cat >expected-suppress-body <<\EOF > 0001-Second.patch > -(mbox) Adding cc: A <author@xxxxxxxxxxx> from line 'From: A <author@xxxxxxxxxxx>' > -(mbox) Adding cc: One <one@xxxxxxxxxxx> from line 'Cc: One <one@xxxxxxxxxxx>, two@xxxxxxxxxxx' > -(mbox) Adding cc: two@xxxxxxxxxxx from line 'Cc: One <one@xxxxxxxxxxx>, two@xxxxxxxxxxx' > -(cc-cmd) Adding cc: cc-cmd@xxxxxxxxxxx from: './cccmd' > +Adding cc: A <author@xxxxxxxxxxx> from From: header > +Adding cc: One <one@xxxxxxxxxxx> from Cc: header > +Adding cc: two@xxxxxxxxxxx from Cc: header > +Adding cc: cc-cmd@xxxxxxxxxxx from: './cccmd' This hunk differs from the others a bit. I totally agree that removing the (mbox) prefix makes sense, but you're removing (cc-cmd) here, which did carry some information. I'd write it as Adding cc: cc-cmd@xxxxxxxxxxx from --cc-cmd: ./cccmd It might make sense to split this into two patches: one for (mbox) + headers and one for (cc-cmd) and (to-cmd). Spotting special-cases like the above inside a long patch is hard for reviewers. -- 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