Ben Aveling <bena....@optusnet.com.au> writes: > On 12/01/2013 10:54 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Antoine Pelisse <apeli...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I would simply go for: >>> >>> What Message-ID are you replying to (if any)? >>> >>> If I don't know what to answer, I would definitely not say y/yes/n/no, >>> but press enter directly. >> Sounds sensible (even though technically you reply to a message >> that has that message ID, and not to a message ID ;-)). >> >> Any better phrasing from others? If not, I'd say we adopt this >> text. > > I guess it depends on how much we mind if people accidentally miss the > message ID. > > If we don't mind much, we could say something like: > > What Message-ID are you replying to [Default=None]? > > > If we are concerned that when a Message-ID exists, it should be > provided, we could split to 2 questions: > > Are you replying to an existing Message [Y/n]? > > And then, if the answer is Y, > > What Message-ID are you replying to?
Eewww. Now we come back to full circles. It sometimes helps to follow the in-reply-to chain to see what has already been said in the thread, I guess ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
