Michael Strawbridge <michael.strawbridge@xxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -799,6 +799,10 @@ sub is_format_patch_arg {
>
> $time = time - scalar $#files;
>
> +@initial_to = process_address_list(@initial_to);
> +@initial_cc = process_address_list(@initial_cc);
> +@initial_bcc = process_address_list(@initial_bcc);
> +
This does not look OK. If we trace how @initial_to gets its value,
- it first gets its value from @getopt_to and @config_to
- if that is empty, and there is no $to_cmd, the end-user is
interactively asked.
- then process_address_list() is applied.
But this patch just swapped the second one and the third one, so
process_address_list() does not process what the end-user gave
interactively, no?
> if ($validate) {
> # FIFOs can only be read once, exclude them from validation.
> my @real_files = ();
It almost feels like what need to move is not the setting of these
address lists, but the code that calls int validation callchain that
needs access to these address lists---the block that begins with the
above "if ($validate) {" needs to move below ...
> @@ -1099,10 +1103,6 @@ sub expand_one_alias {
> return $aliases{$alias} ? expand_aliases(@{$aliases{$alias}}) : $alias;
> }
>
> -@initial_to = process_address_list(@initial_to);
> -@initial_cc = process_address_list(@initial_cc);
> -@initial_bcc = process_address_list(@initial_bcc);
> -
... this point, or something, perhaps?
> if ($thread && !defined $initial_in_reply_to && $prompting) {
> $initial_in_reply_to = ask(
> __("Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the first email (if any)? "),
