Re: [GSoC] A late proposal: a modern send-email
2016-03-29 0:49 GMT+08:00 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>:
Show 29 quoted lines
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:13 AM, 惠轶群 <huiyiqun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-03-26 2:16 GMT+08:00 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
>>> 惠轶群 <huiyiqun@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> # Purpose
>>>> The current implementation of send-email is based on perl and has only
>>>> a tui, it has two problems:
>>>> - user must install a ton of dependencies before submit a single patch.
>>>> - tui and parameter are both not quite friendly to new users.
>>>
>>> Is "a ton of dependencies" true? "apt-cache show git-email"
>>> suggests otherwise. Is "a ton of dependencies" truly a problem?
>>> "apt-get install" would resolve the dependencies for you.
>>
>> There are three perl packages needed to send patch through gmail:
>> - perl-mime-tools
>> - perl-net-smtp-ssl
>> - perl-authen-sasl
>>
>> Yes, not too many, but is it better none of them?
>>
>> What's more, when I try to send mails, I was first disrupted by
>> "no perl-mime-tools" then by "no perl-net-smtp-ssl or perl-authen-sasl".
>> Then I think, why not just a mailto link?
>
> I think your proposal should clarify a bit who these users are that
> find it too difficult to install these perl module dependencies. Users
> on OSX & Windows I would assume, because in the case of Linux distros
> getting these is the equivalent of an apt-get command away.
In fact, I'm not familiar with the build for OSX or Windows.
> If installing these dependencies is hard for users perhaps a better
> thing to focus on is altering the binary builds on Git for platforms
> that don't have package systems to include these dependencies.
Why `mailto` not a good choice? I'm confusing.
> In this case it would mean shipping a statically linked OpenSSL since
> that's what these perl SSL packages eventually depend on.
惠轶群 <huiyiqun@gmail.com>