On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:37:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:30:49PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> The Cc's on the mailing list archive are harder to dig up, and do not >> >> accurately reflect the same information. >> > >> > How comes? These Cc: are 1:1 mapped to the Cc: email headers. >> >> Patch Cc's get mapped to email Cc's depending on personal git sendemail >> configuration. >> >> People can add more Cc's in the emails when sending. > > So, which exactly a proof why email headers are better for that, as they > reflect _reality_. No, I think the point is, commit message Cc != email message Cc, they just have the same name. Similar to, say, Reviewed-by, a commit message Cc may turn into an email message Cc. But you can't make assumptions about it one way or the other. Imagine the commit message Cc was named "Attn:" and handled appropriately. That probably reflects a lot of commit message Cc usage. BR, Jani. > >> Mailing list Cc's actually present in the archives depend on mailing >> list manager configuration, and, in some cases, even the personal list >> preferences of individual subscribers. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
