Samuel GROOT <samuel.gr...@grenoble-inp.org> writes: > @@ -647,10 +647,10 @@ test_expect_success $PREREQ '--suppress-cc=all' ' > test_expect_success $PREREQ 'setup expect' " > cat >expected-suppress-body <<\EOF > 0001-Second.patch > -(mbox) Adding cc: A <aut...@example.com> from line 'From: A > <aut...@example.com>' > -(mbox) Adding cc: One <o...@example.com> from line 'Cc: One > <o...@example.com>, t...@example.com' > -(mbox) Adding cc: t...@example.com from line 'Cc: One <o...@example.com>, > t...@example.com' > -(cc-cmd) Adding cc: cc-...@example.com from: './cccmd' > +Adding cc: A <aut...@example.com> from From: header > +Adding cc: One <o...@example.com> from Cc: header > +Adding cc: t...@example.com from Cc: header > +Adding cc: cc-...@example.com from: './cccmd'
This hunk differs from the others a bit. I totally agree that removing the (mbox) prefix makes sense, but you're removing (cc-cmd) here, which did carry some information. I'd write it as Adding cc: cc-...@example.com from --cc-cmd: ./cccmd It might make sense to split this into two patches: one for (mbox) + headers and one for (cc-cmd) and (to-cmd). Spotting special-cases like the above inside a long patch is hard for reviewers. -- 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
