[PATCH v2 3/7] Test for header preservation
stephen at that.guru
Sat Oct 8 22:46:36 AEDT 2016
On 29 Sep 08:44, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Stephen Finucane <stephen at that.guru> writes:
> > On 28 Sep 15:22, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> >> We're about to rework header parsing. Try to ensure the changes
> >> preserve functionality.
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Axtens <dja at axtens.net>
> > I like the idea, but I don't know if there is any advantage in being
> > quite so specific? Couldn't we drop a lot of these headers? (for
> > example, the problematic 'CC' header)? This would require a new mbox
> > file but that's not the end of the world :)
> > Yeah, I think this can go. It doesn't prove anything that I can see, so
> > we don't need the complexity.
> Sure, no worries. Just drop the patch entirely. I wrote it originally as
> a sanity check for myself and I just included it in the series on the
> off chance it ended up being something we wanted.
OK, I'll pass on this one for now so. I'm open to the general idea
though for a future change.
More information about the Patchwork