> On 22 May 2025, at 1:22 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I was wondering if it would be acceptable for the maintainers to add a git imap-get-recipients >> command. >> >> I currently am working on it, and it would be a perl script. It would do a very simple thing, >> take the message id as an input, and output the To: and Cc: recipients of that message ID. > > If you are selling this tool, you should clarify what the sources > are for the information. There has to be a database of some sort > that you can query with a message-ID and get addresses in that > message. What are you using as that database (e.g., your personal > mailbox? lore archive? an imap mailbox at your provider?) and how > extensive and configurable is the data source? What data are you > picking up from that database to come up with To/Cc addresses? My plan was to select the Mailbox specified by the user and use the IMAP commands to search by message id > >> This can be useful to be used alongwith git-send-email, when you send a v2 and you don't have to >> type all the sender mails again. > > FWIW, if you're only duplicating the To/Cc list of the previous > round, then I do not need it, and I do not want to see anybody, > including you, to be using it. To come up with a list of To/Cc > addresses to use in v2, you should start from those who commented on > v1, in addition to To/Cc used in v1, and then whittle it down. Fair > > Again, the description of the "tool" in the first paragraph was so > sketchy that I cannot tell where you are gathering the To/Cc > addresses from or if the tool is using only the named message, or > considers messages sent as response to that named message, so it is > impossible to give a meaningful response. We cannot tell if the > tool will be useful with given information. > > A more generic version of the response follows to outline the > general principle for those who are watching from sidelines. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > [make us come to you, begging] No intentions to make come to me begging :(. But I do get the point. It's best to keep it to myself. > > I've seen from time to time people ask "I am thinking of doing this; > will a patch be accepted? If so, I'll work on it." before showing > any work, and my response always has been: > > (1) We don't know how useful and interesting your contribution would > be for our audience, until we see it; and > > (2) If you truly believe in your work (find it useful, find writing > it fun, etc.), that would be incentive enough for you to work > on it, whether or not the result will land in my tree. You > should instead aim for something so brilliant that we would > come to you begging for your permission to include it in our > project. >
