Re: [PATCH] send-email: Defines smtpPassCmd config option

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: May 1, 2020, 22:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20200501222723.GF41612@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqees3odrb.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 08:50:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> +of `sendemail.smtpPassCmd`), then a password is obtained using
> >> +'git-credential'.
> >
> > this last part on git credential is just undocumented, since it is already
> > doing so since 4d31a44a08 (git-send-email: use git credential to obtain
> > password, 2013-02-12)
> >
> > and of course, assuming you use a credential helper that keeps the password
> > encrypted you could use that instead of this new feature.
>
> Up to this point I understand your response.
>
> Documenting that "git send-email" can use "git credential" for its
> password store, if it is not already documented, is of course a good
> change.

I agree completely.

> But I am not sure why this is "a good alternative".  Having more
> choices that do not offer anything substantially different is a bad
> thing.  Is this "new mechanism" better in what way?  Simpler to use?
> Faster?  Less error prone?  Something else?

Ditto. I don't think that an increased surface-area of possibilities to specify your password to 'git send-email' is useful. Put another way: why *not* use the in-built credential helper, which is already supported?

Would having it documented eliminate some rationale for invoking a separate program?

Show 9 quoted lines

> Thanks.
>
> > having said that, this looks like a good alternative, but might need to
> > make sure if die makes sense below or would be better to see if you can
> > still get a password through git credential even if that fails.
> >
> > maybe the rule of what to do might even need some configuration itself.
> >
> > Carlo

Thanks, Taylor