(+cc: some send-email people)

Hi,

Antonio Ospite wrote:

quoted text
> Make second and subsequent patches appear as replies to the first patch,
> even when an initial In-Reply-To is supplied
[...]
quoted text
> Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it>

Thanks.

quoted text
>   - When $initial_reply_to is asked to the user, it is asked as the
>     "Message-ID to be used as In-Reply-To for the _first_ email", this
>     makes me think that the second and subsequent patches are not using
>     it

This kind of justification belongs in the commit message, no?
That way, we can save future readers the trouble of figuring out
the rationale all over again when considering future changes to this
code.

quoted text
> --- a/git-send-email.perl
> +++ b/git-send-email.perl
> @@ -1313,7 +1313,7 @@ foreach my $t (@files) {
>  
>  	# set up for the next message
>  	if ($thread && $message_was_sent &&
> -		(chain_reply_to() || !defined $reply_to || length($reply_to) == 0)) {
> +		($message_num == 1 || chain_reply_to() || !defined $reply_to || length($reply_to) == 0)) {
>  		$reply_to = $message_id;

Would it be possible to break this long line?

If you're feeling particularly adventurous, it would be nice to add a
test for the changed functionality to t/t9001-send-email.sh, so we
don't break it with other changes in the future.

I haven't looked too deeply or even tried running applying the patch,
but generally it looks good to me.

Ciao,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html