Re: [PATCH RFC3.5 03/12] send-email: Interpret --smtp-server "" as "use a default".

[Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 20:41, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.

> 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).