From: Michael Witten Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:52:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC3.5 03/12] send-email: Interpret --smtp-server "" as "use a default". Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v7i1gp0di.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 20:41, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Witten 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. > 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).