On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 8:21 PM Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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 actually don't think this is the point Junio was trying to make - rather that you should not need to feel like you have to ask for our permission to write this tool which can also stand alone and improve your own workflow. Rather, if you do write it and you find it useful, it'd be cool to see it sent to the mailing list alongside a cover letter like "would anybody else find value in this? It improved my workflow because <measurements/reasons>". Definitely I don't believe Junio's point was "don't send us this patch, I don't care" - but rather "how do we know we care until we see how you've implemented it". (One reinforcement here is his question about where the Cc list is being queried from; local mbox vs. b4 vs. using a direct clone from lore.kernel.org would definitely change who this workflow will work well for.) - Emily > > > > 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. > >
