From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:00:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC3 05/13] send-email: Cleanup the usage text and docs a bit
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:
> 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?