On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 10:54 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > Many commits have various forms of trailers similar to
> > "Acked-by: Name " and "Reported-by: Name "
> >
> > Add the ability to cc these trailers when using git send-email.
> I thought you were asking what we call these " followed by
> " at the end of the log message, and "footers or trailers"
> was the answer.
>
> I do not have a strong objection against limiting to "-by:" lines;
> for one thing, it would automatically avoid having to worry about
> "Bug-ID:" and other trailers that won't have e-mail address at all.
>
> But if you are _only_ picking up "-by:" lines, then calling this
> option "trailers" is way too wide and confusing. I do not think
> there is any specific name for "-by:" lines, though. Perhaps you
> would need to invent some name that has "-by" as a substring.
>
> "any-by"? or just "by"? I dunno.
Thinking about this a little, "bylines" seems much better.
> >@@ -1545,7 +1545,7 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
> > # Now parse the message body
> > while(<$fh>) {
> > $message .= $_;
> > - if (/^(Signed-off-by|Cc): (.*)$/i) {
> > + if (/^(Signed-off-by|Cc|[^\s]+[_-]by): (.*)$/i) {
> Micronits:
>
> (1) do you really want to grab a run of any non-blanks? Don't
> you want to exclude at least a colon?
It could use [\w_-]+
> (2) allowing an underscore looks a bit unusual.
It's for typos. A relatively high percentage of
these things in at least the kernel were malformed
when I started this 5 years ago.
I don't have an objection to requiring the proper
form using only dashes though.
Maybe that'd help reduce the typo frequency anyway.
> I am aware of the fact that people sometimes write only a name with
> no e-mail address when giving credit to a third-party and we want to
> avoid upsetting the underlying MTA by feeding it a non-address.
>
> Looking at existing helper subs like extract_valid_address and
> sanitize_address that all addresses we pass to the MTA go through,
> it appears to me that we try to support an addr-spec with only
> local-part without @domain, so this new check might turn out to be
> too strict from that point of view, but on the other hand I suspect
> it won't be a huge issue because the addresses in the footers are
> for public consumption and it may not make much sense to have a
> local-only address there. I dunno.
>
> >
> > push @cc, $c;
> > printf("(body) Adding cc: %s from line '%s'\n",
me either but I think it doesn't hurt because
as you suggest, these are supposed to be public.
Thanks for the review.
cheers, Joe