[U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Make dry-run output match real functionality

[Peter Tyser]

On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 22:21 -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 26 January 2015 at 10:42, Peter Tyser <ptyser at xes-inc.com> wrote:
> > When run with the --dry-run argument patman prints out information
> > showing what it would do.  This information currently doesn't line up
> > with what patman/git send-email really do.  Some basic examples:
> > - If an email address is addressed via "Series-cc" and "Patch-cc" patman
> >   shows that email address would be CC-ed two times.
> > - If an email address is addressed via "Series-to" and "Patch-cc" patman
> >   shows that email address would be sent TO and CC-ed.
> > - If an email address is addressed from a combination of tag aliases,
> >   get_maintainer.pl output, "Series-cc", "Patch-cc", etc patman shows
> >   that the email address would be CC-ed multiple times.
> > 
> > Patman currently does try to send duplicate emails like the --dry-run
> > output shows, but "git send-email" intelligently removes duplicate
> > addresses so this patch shouldn't change the non-dry-run functionality.
> > 
> > Change patman's output and email addressing to line up with the
> > "git send-email" logic.  This trims down patman's dry-run output and
> > prevents confusion about what patman will do when emails are actually
> > sent.
> 
> Thanks for the patch, it's good to match up with git send-email.
> 
> Are the rules that git send-email follows documented or obtained by
> trial and error?

Trial and error initially.  The git source code lined up with what I
saw (see the send_message function in git-send-email.perl).  I didn't
see the policy documented officially, but what git does makes sense
to me:
- remove any duplicate addresses in the to: field
- remove all the to: addresses from the cc: addresses
- remove any duplicate cc: addresses

This makes sure each email is only sent to an address one time,
with the to: field taking precedence over the cc: field.


For a recent NAND patch series it looked like I was going to send Scott
2-4 emails per patch which is why I looked into it.

Regards,
Peter