Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:43:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> I think we can go either way and it does not matter all that much if
>> "mailinfo" changes its output or the reader of "mailinfo" output
>> changes its input--we will either be munging data read from "From:"
>> when producing the "Author:" line, or taking the "Author:" output by
>> mailinfo and removing the quotes.
>
> Yeah, that was the part I was wondering about in my original response.
> What is the output of mailinfo _supposed_ to be, and do we consider that
> at all public (i.e., are there are other tools besides "git am" that
> build on mailinfo)?
>
> At least "am" already does some quote-stripping, so any de-quoting added
> in mailinfo is potentially a regression (if we indeed care about keeping
> the output stable).
Another small thing I am not sure about is if the \ quoting can hide
an embedded newline in the author name. Would we end up turning
From: "Jeff \
King" <peff@xxxxxxxx>
or somesuch into
Author: Jeff
King
Email: peff@xxxxxxxx
;-)
> But if we are OK with that, it seems to me that mailinfo is the best
> place to do the de-quoting, because then its output is well-defined:
> everything after "Author:" up to the newline is the name.
There are other things mailinfo does, like turning this
From: peff@xxxxxxxx (Jeff King)
into
Author: Jeff King
Email: peff@xxxxxxxx
and
From: Uh "foo" Bar peff@xxxxxxxx (Jeff King)
into
Author: Uh "foo" Bar (Jeff King)
Email: peff@xxxxxxxx
So let's roll the \" -> " into mailinfo.
I am not sure if we also should remove the surrounding "", i.e. we
currently do not turn this
From: "Jeff King" <peff@xxxxxxxx>
into this:
Author: Jeff King
Email: peff@xxxxxxxx
I think we probably should, and remove the one that does so from the
reader.