On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 12:05:43AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
[snip]
> >
> > Would you suggest moving to a format.<branchname>.* approach or would it
> > make sense to rename the configs to something like
> > branch.<name>.{emailCoverSubject,emailTo,emailCc}?
>
> So if I have to pick between the two, I would probably vote for the
> former from the philosophical ground, but operationally, I suspect
> that the latter would be much simpler to use. You could even have
> "git branch -d <name>" to get rid of them at the same time.
>
> But as I may have hinted in the message you are responding to, I am
> not quite convinced we want these configuration variables in the
> first place. Why should both description and coverSubject need to
> exist? Perhaps we should add a heuristic like "If the branch
> description looks like a single line, optionally followed by 'a
> blank line and more paragraphs', use the first line as the subject
> of the cover letter (and the remainder as the body of the cover
> letter) or something?
>
I considered doing something like that but I opted not to because it
wouldn't be a backwards compatible change and I didn't want to surprise
any future users with a change like this.
For branch.<branchname>.{to,cc}, I wanted these config options because
the current method for format-patch to handle Cc-lists is just manually
keeping track of the people who have responded and entering them into
the --cc option of format-patch.
