Re: [PATCH RFC3.5 03/12] send-email: Interpret --smtp-server "" as "use a default".
- From
Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 20, 2009, 02:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b4087cc50904191952x27ec0269nd12849688f720fb3@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v7i1gp0di.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 20:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> writes: > >> Why not? It's at least useful for testing. > > Why so? "Use a default" as opposed to using what? >
Use a default as opposed to using the nonsensical empty string.
Show 7 quoted lines
> It is unclear what "a default" is in this context. Do configured values > count as "a default"? I suspect not. > > I think you meant "allow overriding the configured values and use the > default", but then you should spell what the defaults are (an available > local MTA binary, or SMTP port on localhost, I think). That is much more > informative than your "Why not?..."
I see your irritation is derived from my carefree (careless?) commit message. However, the patch doesn't do anything but trigger the already present default-selecting code; there are already docs that specify what those defaults are.
> In any case, I find it counterintuitive to trigger "use the default" with > an option. Something like "--ignore-config=smtp-server,smtp-port" might > make sense, though.
I can get behind that kind of solution; however, I see no problem with the shorthand --smtp-server "" either (other than the fact that it requires an extra test in order to work).