On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:26:33 -0700 Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Thanks for commenting Junio.Sorry, I meant the man page part about --[no-]chain-reply-to, I mistyped that and generated more confusion than was "necessary". No doubts on that. This is pretty clear as well. In general, 3b. is specified in --[no-]chain-reply-to section, the "problem" with 3a. is that --in-reply-to _overrides_ the behavior specified by --no-chain-reply-to. So I think that the whole issue really boils down to the question: Should --in-reply-to apply _only_ to the first email? The doc for the corresponding git-format-patch option gives _one_ answer, and you know that :) By answering to this question with a YES also in git-send-email, we are making --in-reply-to *independent* from --[no-]chain-reply-to, hence the very simple test. Right, the documentation needs be updated as well, thanks for pointing this out. I think I am going to copy from the git-format-patch man page. So, do you agree to this change of behavior as long as it is documented? Some other tests do that as well, the last line is a command by itself not and-chained with the git-send-email invocation. I guess the logic behind this is that the test succeeds if the _last_ command succeeds. If this is wrong then some other tests are affected too. I saw the tests in the other mail, but under my interpretation we should just ensure --in-reply-to is applying to the first message only (so we check the second one), if so from the third one on --[no-]chain-reply-to is totally unrelated to --in-reply-to. I think I can make the test more explicit tho, like: ("In-Reply-To" of second message) != $initial_reply_to Thanks, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite http://ao2.it PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?