Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] send-email: allow multiple emails using --cc --to and --bcc

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:45:06 -0700

Remi Lespinet <[email-masked]> writes:

> From: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia <[email-masked]>
>
> Add the possibility to use a list of emails separated by commas
> in flags --cc --to and --bcc instead of having to use one flag
> per email address.
>
> The use-case is to copy-paste a list of addresses from an email.
> This change makes it so that we no longer need to cut the list.

s/Add the possibility to use/Accept/;

I am not sure "having to use" is a good characterization.

    Accept a list of emails separated by commas in flags --cc, --to
    and --bcc.  Multiple addresses can already be given by using
    these options multiple times, but it is more convenient to allow
    cutting-and-pasting a list of addresses from the header of an
    existing e-mail message, which already lists them as
    comma-separated list, as a value to a single parameter.

perhaps?

> The format of email list handled is basic for now:
> 	$ git send-email --to='Foo <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]'
> We thought it would be nice to have a "first-step" version which works

Separate displayed material from the body text with blank lines, i.e.

        The format of email list handled is basic for now:

                $ git send-email --to='Foo ...

        We thought it would be nice to have a "first-step" version which works

"We thought"?

> before handling more complex ones such as names with commas:
> 	$ git send-email --to='Foo, Bar <[email-masked]>'

Shouldn't this example send to two users, i.e. a local user Foo and
the mailbox 'foobar' at example.com whose human-readable name is
Bar?  If so, that is a bad example to illustrate the aspiration for
the finished patch?

> This artificial limitation is imposed by 79ee555b (Check and document
> the options to prevent mistakes, 2006-06-21).

It is unclear from this sentence what you are doing with the
limitation (is it artificial?  do we have to call it artificial?).
The reader of the log message cannot tell if you are keeping it, or
if you are lifting it with this patch.

> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Lienard--Mayor <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Jorge Juan Garcia Garcia <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]>
> Contributions-by: Remi Lespinet <[email-masked]>

You touched the patch or sent it out, so you need to give your own
sign-off.

Thanks.