Hi Marek,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 6:25 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/16/2018 09:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2018 09:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:07 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/15/2018 07:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:49 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/15/2018 07:47 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 06:23 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 02:49:22AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Introduce new thermal_zone_of_sensor_register_params() function, which
> >>>>>>>>>> allows passing struct thermal_zone_params into it and convert original
> >>>>>>>>>> thermal_zone_of_sensor_register() to call it with params set to NULL.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Git complains about mismatch between From: and this SOB.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I recall a discussion about gmail stripping the +foo tags from email
> >>>>>>>> addresses. I can add a From: tag into the patch to override this
> >>>>>>>> braindeath, or is there a better solution ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Run the "git format-patch" command from a git repo where user.email
> >>>>>>> is marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx, so it will retain the original From: tag in the
> >>>>>>> email body, as it is different?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can also manually patch the From tags or add them, but it's all
> >>>>>> workarounds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Use a different outgoing email server? I use my ISP's.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or maybe it'd make sense to fix git to handle the +tags correctly ?
> >>>
> >>> What needs to be fixed?
> >>> If user.email != From, git format-patch generates a From: header, else
> >>> it doesn't. Doesn't that make sense?
> >>
> >> I believe the complaint here is that email address in From does not
> >> match email address in SoB line, because some SMTP servers scrub the
> >> +foo tag from From: and not from SoB-line . And yet, the SoB line is
> >
> > Some SMTP servers (Hi Gmail!) scrub the +foo tag from the From: _header_
> > in the email. As the SoB is in the _body_ it is not affected.
> > Hence the solution is to include the correct From: in the _body_.
>
> This is basically what I said.
>
> > Git actually does that automatically, assumed your user.email config matches
> > the From: address that is used in your outgoing email delivery path (i.e. the
> > scrubbed one, when using Gmail's SMTP server).
> > If you lie to git in your user.email config, git cannot do the right
> > thing, obviously.
>
> My git user.email obviously matches the From: field , before the
> scrubbing, which I believe is the correct thing to do.
I disagree, because that is not how the emails are actually going out from the
SMTP server you are using.
> >> from the same person/email address as the email address in From, so they
> >> are equal.
> >
> > If they differ, they are not equal ;-)
>
> Depends on how you define 'equal' . Here I think foo+bar@xxxxxxxxxxx
> should be considered equal to foo@xxxxxxxxxxx .
That is domain-specific knowledge, which you cannot rely upon.
> > While many mail servers ignore +foo when delivering email to mailboxes,
> > this is not the case for all of them. So ignoring +foo is not the universal
> > solution.
> >
> >> I think git should just ignore the +foo tag in SoB line.
> >
> > Where should "git" ignore the +foo tag? Is it actually git that complains?
> > Eduardo: Do you mean checkpatch? ;-)
>
> Possibly. I ran checkpatch after git format-patch and it didn't complain.
>
> > I did enhance checkpatch with a check to verify that patches carry SoB tags
> > from their authors, as too many people got that wrong, causing complaints
> > from sfr in linux-next later. As usual, it's better to get things right as early
> > as possible in the process, to avoid rework.
>
> Aha, so maybe that enhancement needs further enhancement to scrub the
> +tags before the check ?
Again, that is domain-specific knowledge, which you cannot rely upon.
> > So the problem is on the patch sending side, not on the patch verification
> > receiving side.
> > Hence please fix your email setup, thanks!
>
> See above.
How is any of this different from people making mistakes trying to send
patches through a not-to-be-named corporate email system?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
