Samuel GROOT <samuel.gr...@grenoble-inp.org> writes: > On 06/08/2016 06:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Samuel GROOT <samuel.gr...@grenoble-inp.org> writes: >> >>> Actually we had issues when trying to refactor send-email's email >>> parsing loop [1]. Email addresses in output file `commandeline1` in >>> tests weren't sorted the same way as the reference file it was >>> compared to. E.g.: >>> >>> !nob...@example.com! >>> !aut...@example.com! >>> !o...@example.com! >>> !t...@example.com! >> >> And the reason why these addresses that are collected from the same >> input (i.e. command line, existing e-mail fields, footers, etc.) are >> shown in different order in your implementation is...? > > It's not shown in different order in our implementation, it's just a > leftover of my refactor attempt [1].
I think the refactoring makes sense, but having this patch as PATCH 1/6 in a series about --in-reply-to confuses reviewers: they would expect this patch to be useful to the others in the series. If you have "reply to a message in a file" ready without the refactoring, and a mostly ready refactoring, then I think it makes sense to have two patch series, the first being only "reply to a message in a file". If the refactoring itself is not ready, you may send a separate series "tests clean up" and explain on the cover-letter that it's, well, only a test clean up. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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
