Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> 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.
