On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 01:53:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >>> If it's not in the body of the message, then where is it? > > >> > > >> This point is clarified in the thread > > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=147625930203434&w=2, which is > > >> with my upstream maintainer. > > > > > > Which explicitly states that the syntax is not [$number], but # $number, > > > right? > > > > But I do not think that works, either. Let's step back. > > > > People write things like these > > > > Cc: Stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.8 > > Cc: Stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [4.8+] > > > > in the trailer part in the body of the message. Are these lines > > meant to be usable if they appear as Cc: headers of an outgoing > > piece of e-mail as-is? > > I think the answer is pretty clearly no. It's just that historically we > have auto-munged it into something useful. I think the viable options > are basically: > > 1. Tell people not to do that, and to do something RFC compliant like > "Stable [4.8+]" <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. This is a little funny > for git because we otherwise do not require things like > rfc-compliant quoting for our name/email pairs. But it Just Works > without anybody having to write extra code, or worry about corner > cases in parsing. > > 2. Drop everything after the trailing ">". This gives a valid rfc2822 > cc, and people can pick the "# 4.8" from the cc line in the body. Comments, surrounded by parenthesis are allowed after the ">" according to the RFC, just plain dropping everything comming after that would break that support.