Re: Add git imap-get-recipients command

> On 22 May 2025, at 1:22 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@live.com> writes:
> 
>> I was wondering if it would be acceptable for the maintainers to add a git imap-get-recipients
>> command.
>> 
>> I currently am working on it, and it would be a perl script. It would do a very simple thing,
>> take the message id as an input, and output the To: and Cc: recipients of that message ID.
> 
> If you are selling this tool, you should clarify what the sources
> are for the information.  There has to be a database of some sort
> that you can query with a message-ID and get addresses in that
> message.  What are you using as that database (e.g., your personal
> mailbox?  lore archive?  an imap mailbox at your provider?) and how
> extensive and configurable is the data source?  What data are you
> picking up from that database to come up with To/Cc addresses?

> 
>> This can be useful to be used alongwith git-send-email, when you send a v2 and you don't have to
>> type all the sender mails again.
> 
> FWIW, if you're only duplicating the To/Cc list of the previous
> round, then I do not need it, and I do not want to see anybody,
> including you, to be using it.  To come up with a list of To/Cc
> addresses to use in v2, you should start from those who commented on
> v1, in addition to To/Cc used in v1, and then whittle it down.

> 
> Again, the description of the "tool" in the first paragraph was so
> sketchy that I cannot tell where you are gathering the To/Cc
> addresses from or if the tool is using only the named message, or
> considers messages sent as response to that named message, so it is
> impossible to give a meaningful response.  We cannot tell if the
> tool will be useful with given information.
> 
> A more generic version of the response follows to outline the
> general principle for those who are watching from sidelines.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> [make us come to you, begging]

> 
> I've seen from time to time people ask "I am thinking of doing this;
> will a patch be accepted?  If so, I'll work on it." before showing
> any work, and my response always has been:
> 
> (1) We don't know how useful and interesting your contribution would
>     be for our audience, until we see it; and
> 
> (2) If you truly believe in your work (find it useful, find writing
>     it fun, etc.), that would be incentive enough for you to work
>     on it, whether or not the result will land in my tree.  You
>     should instead aim for something so brilliant that we would
>     come to you begging for your permission to include it in our
>     project.
>