Re: [PATCH RFC3 05/13] send-email: Cleanup the usage text and docs a bit
- From
Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 14, 2009, 06:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b4087cc50904132300m391ac4ffn6a41ecc5cdcb6ed8@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vfxgbaj5s.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 00:39, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> A port number in --smtp-server is no longer handled, >>>> so the suggestion has been removed. >> ... >> I may have been concerned that the SSL connection code doesn't support >> a host:port specification, so I thought it would be easier not to >> advertise it: > > These two statements contradict with each other. Please make up your mind > ;-).
I'm confused.
The usage text for --smtp-server currently has <host:port>, which doesn't work when 'ssl' is used for the connection to the server. However, the other forms of connection DO work when a <host:port> address is given.
I set out to add <host:port> support for SSL, but then decided that people should just use the --smtp-server-port input. It already works for every connection method and why else have it? However, rather than remove ALL support for <host:port>, I just changed <host:port> to <host> in the usage text for --smtp-server.
So, effectively, I've deprecated <host:port> by changing the documentation, but the code hasn't changed. Would you rather support <host:port> for everything?