From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 04:17:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-send-email: use ! to indicate relative path to command
Message-ID: <609b56c84a65_678ff208f1@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <YJs2RceLliGHI5TX@gpanders.com>

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