On 12-06-17, 11:04, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 18-05-17, 17:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> This adds tocmd option to suppress-cc command which already supports
> >>> cccmd and others.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> Documentation/git-send-email.txt | 1 +
> >>> git-send-email.perl | 8 ++++----
> >>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Ping !!
> >
> > Pong?
> >
> > I didn't get the impression that in the discussion that led to your
> > patch (or in any response to the patch) we established that it is a
> > good idea to change the behaviour of suppress-cc unconditionally
> > like this patch does.
Yeah, there were no conclusions there but we agreed that we have a
problem to solve. And this patch tried one of the ways.
> I think suppress-cc that suppresses cccmd output is very sensible
> (after all, it is about suppressing CC and cccmd is about producing
> CC), but I am not convinced that it is a good idea to suppress tocmd
> (which is about producing To) via suppress-cc.
>
> Going back to the core part of your change, i.e.
>
> - foreach my $entry (qw (cccmd cc author self sob body bodycc)) {
> + foreach my $entry (qw (tocmd cccmd cc author self sob body bodycc)) {
>
> to think about it a bit more, I notice that all the existing ones
> are about CC. So I am not just not convinced that tocmd belongs to
> the same class. I am inclined to say that it smells quite different
> from others.
That's right but how do we solve this problem then?
Add another optional argument like suppress-to ? I thought that it
would be better to override suppress-cc rather than attempting any
such thing.
I am fine with any solution that address the concerns raised by this
patch though.
--
viresh
