From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A541DB924 for ; Thu, 29 May 2025 18:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748544615; cv=none; b=Y8JWPqPbVaNj718bwiaxR2n/2ZxFx4z2X/ZcCAiAOHgizimwM1vJOSs3GB+w2K9fgYJ/oJMjisbwKwbkqq6pgeT1MmMCwPrMcLfh8I1dZzS0/AOY1MoZwucrIVA2TTo4IgGqlXjEb15ci0NMT0ldAOQiRlM50appRGcLttMelYc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748544615; c=relaxed/simple; bh=r4mC64WKjJh8VvAuwTTTww7RnEmUcISgPPThj8y9LiU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pC/hgdPrF8o3HSi2UrVPVCGOk5oRVV/1qhSkUpQk2PqbiWQDyhJadK1pdPaKlqnXd+2niY+DGAzalCHQS+ej6f6uZdD8nkp9BMbtWJfqNWFPYLWmad3846izk5Zuuo27OEJ3VeV4Ere4NNNiZvLGVuMOe14PQP+HTp0izy3cE90= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=MLRgzjxL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=b3J+P15m; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="MLRgzjxL"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="b3J+P15m" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F59114017A; Thu, 29 May 2025 14:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 May 2025 14:50:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1748544612; x=1748631012; bh=jWHWojp7tO FJV8mkoMFZJhBVODH9BZxchgfVVXJ0rYw=; b=MLRgzjxL9WEOqYlJ+wKnCGEHh9 pd69r7KnBXhh9/1q6GGLDg3BDcT88yxqM3OSEuhNGoAYYcuzxhY2Bj3lgoMf/fZP zR4+O9NjeaQSJdX4WHzHng3z7uMUQMjfCONyV575Mt1x6cMYZPx2YV3qTZAglRqo eENB25Ze4qvW3Axn65ePDP/SPVT9PXISM5R+qhKh4ITJdb0C4TeOOZ0ao2+o9gCn 71KexDeeW8YQVnoGDlwx+co9r8C+8d//7lu3ISlSq4KdbH+gnSH5YmrzcFe48lfo U4owu5RGCmeZT8pRHBx0DZTslwcehIWaWrBj25lgsv9wkY9+sgvJOokhU9dw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1748544612; x=1748631012; bh=jWHWojp7tOFJV8mkoMFZJhBVODH9BZxchgf VVXJ0rYw=; b=b3J+P15moixzJRi/iAo1EdzPsO6FbhrJSbzinmgDkp0wTz+jLRV SsjynbBQtn1MZePdYjCGvPk9P5pvFvUhYPGzHstC+ZFzhUyEY8jIv9kuMmpFR6Bs Cj4m/K4PFHWjZptBqOo5qcVf3u9XwkV+8X0YB2CwWXJ324Tnlyjtz0XWPiRRn9j+ pVUDoB1Az4iEg7n8Wxu7+k3nZTdwQPt97Ro1juMHH4XavfGeEThsy95Epn+Yk2p/ dOMzZzqWXiU6uDyQjs+L14xQ/1By6LF5OqYI6Ff5atKbLZWpFL3E5zJy48ptb0+3 bosiCXkBrzeoiNnu5GOaG4tK+l+DG9OVVJg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddtgddvieeltdculddtuddrgeefvddrtd dtmdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggft fghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftd dtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhff kfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoe hgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevuefgiedu keehvdevleehjeetvdehveetheekffehheefhedtvdevfeethfffteenucffohhmrghinh epghhoohhglhgvrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehm rghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtoh epledpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghgrrhhgrgguihhthigrtdek sehlihhvvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorh hgpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhulhhirghnsehsfigrghgvmhgrkhgvrhhsrdhorhhgpdhrtghp thhtohepshhunhhshhhinhgvsehsuhhnshhhihhnvggtohdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhope iiihihrghoseguihhsrhhoohhtrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghr hhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshgrnhgurg hlshestghruhhsthihthhoohhthhhprghsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhohhgr nhhnvghsrdhstghhihhnuggvlhhinhesghhmgidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsth gvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 29 May 2025 14:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Aditya Garg Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" , Julian Swagemakers , Eric Sunshine , Zi Yao , Kristoffer Haugsbakk , "sandals@crustytoothpaste.net" , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] docs: make the purpose of using app password for Gmail more clear in send-email In-Reply-To: <20250528070521.17379-5-gargaditya08@live.com> (Aditya Garg's message of "Wed, 28 May 2025 07:05:38 +0000") References: <20250528070521.17379-1-gargaditya08@live.com> <20250528070521.17379-5-gargaditya08@live.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 11:50:09 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Aditya Garg writes: > The current example for Gmail suggests using app passwords for > send-email if user has multi-factor authentication set up for their > account. However, it does not clarify that the user cannot use their > normal password in case they do not have multi-factor authentication > enabled. Correct, and the clarification looks good. > This commit clarifies that app passwords are required and suggests using > OAuth2 if the user does not want to enable multi-factor authentication. Dubious. If the user does want to use 2FA (or already does use it), there may be reasons why they still want to go the oauth route, no? > --- > Documentation/git-send-email.adoc | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) Not signed off. > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-send-email.adoc b/Documentation/git-send-email.adoc > index aff0861d29..99c126cd5a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-send-email.adoc > +++ b/Documentation/git-send-email.adoc > @@ -524,9 +524,12 @@ edit `~/.gitconfig` to specify your account settings: > smtpServerPort = 587 > ---- > > +Gmail does not allow using your account password for `git send-email`. > If you have multi-factor authentication set up on your Gmail account, you can > generate an app-specific password for use with `git send-email`. Visit > https://security.google.com/settings/security/apppasswords to create it. > +If you do not want to enable multi-factor authentication, you can use OAuth2.0 > +authentication as described below. How about phrasing it more neutrally like ... "Alternatively, instead of using app-specific password, you can use ..." The original somehow makes it sound like using 2FA + app_password is the golden way, and short of that you could fall back to OAUTH, but that is not the impression you would want to give to your readers, I think. > You can also use OAuth2.0 authentication with Gmail. `OAUTHBEARER` and > `XOAUTH2` are common methods used for this type of authentication. Gmail Whether you take my suggestion or not, I think the first sentence here is now redundant and can be safely removed.