On Tue, 11 May 2021 20:52 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 08:08:50PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Yeah, that was mentioned in the thread I linked earlier. I think it
> > would be a fine solution, too. It would probably make sense for it to
> > use the shell, as suggested elsewhere, and to call it "smtp-command" for
> > consistency with other parts of Git (I'm thinking particularly of
> > GIT_SSH versus GIT_SSH_COMMAND, where the latter was introduced to fix
> > the defect that the former could not provide any arguments).
>
> But it would be "smtpserver-command", and I don't think that the best
> naming, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with SMTP, or
> a server.
>
> I think simply sendemail.command is perfectly fine.
Aren't there many other "commands" run by send-email, like --to-cmd and
--cc-cmd? It probably should indicate somehow that it is the command for
sending mail. I agree it does not have to say "SMTP". If it is meant to
be compatible with sendmail, then maybe "sendemail.sendmailCommand" and
"--sendmail-cmd" would work.
Yes, although I find sendemail.sendmailCommand awfully redundant.
I would prefer sendemail.mainCommand, but to me sendemail.command
implies it's the main command as opposed to all ther other commands.
Just like there's many presidents in USA (of companies, organizations,
and student unions), but when you say "the president of USA" it's
understood which president you are talking about.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
I agree with Jeff here. While I also find sendemail.sendmailCommand
redundant, it makes more sense when used as a command line option:
git send-email --sendmail-cmd <cmd>
Conversely, `--command` is more ambiguous and less clear. Explicitly
using `sendmailCommand` makes it clear that the user is specifying a
command that is compatible with the `sendmail` program.
