Gregory Anders wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2021 20:52 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > 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. > > 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. So would `git send-email --sendmail <cmd>`. To make it clear, I think the options are: 1. `git send-email --sendmail <cmd>`: `sendemail.sendmail` 2. `git send-email --command <cmd>`: `sendemail.command` I lean towards #2 since I think most people do a configuration and forget about it it; they will rarely use the --command argument. What I'm really against is: sendemail.sendmail-command.sendmail = sendmail Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
