On Wed, 29 May 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:53:30AM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > IMO the best we can do is use what we already have: what CVS or SVN used > > > as the committer identity. *That* info is *correct* at least. > > > > CVS and SVN have a local identity. git has a global identity. I consider > > Git has an identity (well, two) _per commit_, and there is no way you can > reconstruct people's prefered name and email address (at any point in time, > for every commit separately) correctly. IMO it is much better to not even > try. We already *have* enough info for anyone to trivially look up who wrote > what, and what might be that person's email address at the time. But > pretending that is more than a guess is just wrong.
I think not doing a best-effort identification (name+email) is just as wrong as converting a CVS repository to a changeset-based system without doing a best-effort unification of commits to different files around the same time with the same log message into changesets. Both are the same sort of heuristic conversion of data to the form idiomatic for a different version control system based around different concepts. Neither is perfect, but the most useful conversion tries to combine CVS commits to different files into changesets, and the most useful conversion tries to identify authors in the way idiomatic for git using the information we have about what person (globally) a given username on a given system corresponds to. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
