Jonathan Tan writes:
> From: bogosity
> - a list
> - of stuff
>
> Unchanged, the subsequent patch would break this test because it would
> interpret that as a multi-line "From" in-body header when in-body
> headers are *not* disabled.
Yes, that is totally expected. So I would be perfe
On 09/16/2016 03:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmph, these:
t/t5100/info0008--no-inbody-headers | 5 +
t/t5100/msg0008--no-inbody-headers | 6 ++
t/t5100/msg0015--no-inbody-headers | 1 +
have --no-inbody-headers in their names; wouldn't that an indication
that they are expected out
Jonathan Tan writes:
> On 09/16/2016 12:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Tan writes:
>>
>>> An existing sample message (0015) in the tests for mailinfo contains an
>>> indented line immediately after an in-body header (without any
>>> intervening blank line).
>>
>> This comes from d25e51
On 09/16/2016 12:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Tan writes:
An existing sample message (0015) in the tests for mailinfo contains an
indented line immediately after an in-body header (without any
intervening blank line).
This comes from d25e5159 ("git am/mailinfo: Don't look at in-body
Jonathan Tan writes:
> An existing sample message (0015) in the tests for mailinfo contains an
> indented line immediately after an in-body header (without any
> intervening blank line).
This comes from d25e5159 ("git am/mailinfo: Don't look at in-body
headers when rebasing", 2009-11-20), where
5 matches
Mail list logo
