On 05/06/2019 19:04, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 6/3/19 6:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> And I think guessing is not a "best effort", but just wrong. >> >> It's 100% accurate about the identity of the person who was the committer >> (modulo the one username from the gcc2 period where it was clear who the >> author of the commits by that username was, and so that went in the >> author >> map, but not clear that was the same as the committer, who did not commit >> patches for any other author). So it's as accurate as any case where >> someone committing natively in git for someone else failed to use >> --author >> (and if the CVS/SVN commit included a ChangeLog entry, we have credit >> given from there via the "changelogs" feature). >> >> I think failing to credit (by name and email address) the person implied >> by the commit metadata, in the absence of positive evidence (such as a >> ChangeLog entry) for the change being authored by someone else, is just >> wrong, in the same way it's wrong not to use --author when committing for >> someone else in git. > > It's wrong, but it's not importantly wrong. If we're doing a > reposurgeon conversion, this adjustment makes sense. If we're starting > from the git-svn mirror, it doesn't justify breaking everyone's copies > by rewriting branches. And the bird in the hand looks more and more > appealing as time goes by. > >> Where a person used different names over time, there's no generally >> applicable rule for whether they'd prefer the latest version or the >> version used at the time to be used in reference to past commits, and I >> think using the most current version known is most appropriate, in the >> absence of a ChangeLog entry added in the commit, unless they've >> specified >> a preference for some other rule for which commits get what name. >> Likewise for email addresses. > > For email addresses, I think that using @gcc.gnu.org would be the best > approach for people that have such accounts, rather than an employer > address from an arbitrary point in time.
Or @gnu.org for accounts that pre-date the switch to EGCS and CVS. > > Jason
