Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > [culling the rather large cc, as we moving off the original topic] > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 03:14:03AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> and there's your perl array ref (from the square brackets, which are >> necessary because we're sticking it in a hash value). But even before >> your patch, this seems to end up as garbage. The code which reads >> $parsed_line does not dereference the array. >> >> The patch to fix it is only a few lines (well, more than that with some >> light editorializing in the comments): > > So here's the fix in a cleaned up form, guided by my own comments from > earlier. ;) I think this is actually all orthogonal to the patch you are > working on, so yours could either go on top or just be applied > separately. > > [1/3]: doc/send-email: mention handling of "reply-to" with --compose > [2/3]: Revert "send-email: extract email-parsing code into a subroutine" > [3/3]: send-email: handle to/cc/bcc from --compose message Nice. With the approach suggested to move the validation down to where the necessary addresses are already all defined, Michael observed "whoa, why am I getting stringified array ref?". If that is the only issue in the approach, queuing these three patches first and then have Michael's fix on top of them sounds like the cleanest thing to do. Will queue on top of v2.42.0 to help those who may want to backport these to the maintenance track. Thanks.
