Le 09/06/2016 à 13:49, Matthieu Moy a écrit :
> Samuel GROOT writes:
>
>> If used with `in-reply-to=`, cite the message body of the given
>> email file. Otherwise, do nothing.
>
> It should at least warn when --in-reply-to= is not given
> (either no --in-reply-to or --in-reply-to=). I don't see
On 06/09/2016 01:49 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Samuel GROOT writes:
If used with `in-reply-to=`, cite the message body of the given
email file. Otherwise, do nothing.
It should at least warn when --in-reply-to= is not given
(either no --in-reply-to or --in-reply-to=). I don't see any
use-case w
Samuel GROOT writes:
> If used with `in-reply-to=`, cite the message body of the given
> email file. Otherwise, do nothing.
It should at least warn when --in-reply-to= is not given
(either no --in-reply-to or --in-reply-to=). I don't see any
use-case where a user would want --cite on the command
If used with `in-reply-to=`, cite the message body of the given
email file. Otherwise, do nothing.
If `--compose` is also set, quote the message body in the cover letter. Else,
imply `--annotate` by default and quote the message body below the triple-dash
section in the first patch only.
Signed-o
4 matches
Mail list logo
