From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B283C2D0C2 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 14:02:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D626E22314 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 14:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727813AbgACOCR (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:02:17 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:2842 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727523AbgACOCR (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jan 2020 09:02:17 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jan 2020 06:02:16 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,390,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="222171351" Received: from jnikula-mobl3.fi.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.237.66.161]) by orsmga003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jan 2020 06:02:14 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: sendemail-validate hook is run too early In-Reply-To: <87sgkwswhs.fsf@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <875zhut5yd.fsf@intel.com> <87sgkwswhs.fsf@intel.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 16:02:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87png0sknv.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 03 Jan 2020, Jani Nikula wrote: > I think one possible alternative to adding a completely new hook would > be postponing the sendemail-validate hook, passing the same patch on the > command-line as before (to ensure current users are unchanged), and > additionally passing in the recipients. I realize the validation is done on *all* patches in a series before any further processing, so the suggestion to postpone the current validation hook is a bad idea. We'd need a new hook. The other points about having both the patch contents and the recipients available to the hook remain. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center