From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753511AbbAEWSx (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:18:53 -0500 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews04.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.7]:55847 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews04.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752825AbbAEWSw (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:18:52 -0500 Message-ID: <1420496330.14308.37.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] *** SUBJECT HERE *** From: Paul Bolle To: Konrad Zapalowicz Cc: Greg KH , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, pankaj.saraf@nektech.in, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, abbotti@mev.co.uk, jitendra kumar khasdev Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 23:18:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20150104014119.GE25819@t400> References: <1420274187-6779-1-git-send-email-jkhasdev@gmail.com> <20150103164516.GB30268@kroah.com> <1420325674.9624.65.camel@x220> <20150104014119.GE25819@t400> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2015 22:18:50.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[954818C0:01D02935] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2015-01-04 at 02:41 +0100, Konrad Zapalowicz wrote: > git send-email does one thing and one thing only - sends stuff via > email. I do not see why it should parse the emails and decide whether to > complete the operation or break based on what is in the emails. It already has to parse the file(s) it's provided with. Perhaps it already has checks to validate Subject: lines. Would an extra test be a burden? > It could > warn though however since the cover letter is a product of different > command introducing this logic would tightly couple those which is not > good. A warning would be too late: the message with the silly subject would be already sent out. > I guess that it is better that people who send stuff acctually care what > they are sending. I mean that pretty quickly you learn to send the > series of patches first to yourself and review before it goes out to the > public. It's good if people are careful. It's also good if programs help to avoid silly mistakes. Paul Bolle