Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>> Again, regarding `crm-separator' I don't know if this is a value that
>> people change or not (perhaps it should be changed to a defconst).
>
> At least, it's not defcustom, so it's not intended for user customization.
>
>> I can also imagine that the initial input outside of a log buffer ought
>> to just be the last commit.
>
> Depends on whether this is one of the most popular workflows.
>
>>> Additional question: shouldn't the behavior of
>>> vc-prepare-patches-separately=nil be equivalent to
>>> vc-prepare-patches-separately=t when only one revision is given?  Both
>>> cases create just one mail.  So when vc-prepare-patches-separately is
>>> nil, could it extract the subject from the single revision?  Or maybe
>>> vc-prepare-patches-separately should support a new customization value
>>> for this?
>>
>> Yes, but the formatting is different.  In the one case you attach a
>> patch to a regular message, while in the other case the message is
>> prepared in such a way that (at least when using Git) the entire message
>> is a valid patch, where we can use "git am".
>
> Hmm, I tried both variants, and still not sure which is better
> for the 1-patch case.  However, what I definitely suggest to do is
> to get rid of recursive-edit, that also Robert noticed on emacs-devel.
> recursive-edit is too fragile for modal editing, because such
> commands as keyboard-escape-quit can easily break it.  Without
> recursive-edit you can just create all mail buffers at once.
> Then after sending one mail, its buffer gets buried, and the
> next mail buffer will be shown instead, etc.

I have done all of the above and am prepared to push the changes, but
before I do I was wondering if anyone would have any objections to the
following changes to vc-git.el: