On 11/14, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On 11/14/2016 10:56 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >>>>to: > >>>>HEAD:file > >>>>HEAD:sub/file > >>>> > >>>>Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>--- > >>> > >>>Unrelated tangent, but this makes readers wonder what the updated > >>>trailer code would do to the last paragraph ;-). Does it behave > >>>sensibly (with some sane definition of sensibleness)? > >>> > >>>I am guessing that it would, because neither To: or HEAD: is what we > >>>normally recognize as a known trailer block element. > >> > >>Yes, it behaves sensibly :-) because "Signed-off-by:" is preceded by a > >>blank line, so the trailer block consists only of that line. > > > >Oh, that was not what I was wondering. Imagine Brandon writing his > >message that ends in these three questionable lines and then running > >"commit -s --amend" to add his sign-off---that was the case I was > >wondering. > > Ah, I see. In that case, it would consider the last block as a > trailer block and attach it directly: > > to: > HEAD:file > HEAD:sub/file > Signed-off-by: ... > > It is true that neither to: nor HEAD: are known trailers, but my > patch set accepts trailer blocks that are 100% well-formed > regardless of whether the trailers are known (to provide backwards > compatibility with git-interpret-trailers, and to satisfy the > certain use cases that I brought up). The "known trailer" check is > used when the trailer block is not 100% well-formed. > > This issue can be avoided if those lines were indented with at least > one space or at least one tab. Who would have thought my simple example would cause this kind of discussion! I can update the commit message and indent the output so that it looks like the following: to: HEAD:file HEAD:sub/file -- Brandon Williams