Thread: Re: Time to add a Git .mailmap?
On 2024-Oct-31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > When looking at our Git tree for a recent conference presentation I happened to > notice that we have recently gained duplicate names in the shortlog. Not sure > if we care enough to fix that with a .mailmap, but if we do the attached diff > makes sure that all commits are accounted for a single committer entry. LGTM. I'd also add this line while at it: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> <peter_e@gmx.net> This takes care of all the duplicate "identities" in the history AFAICT. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "No me acuerdo, pero no es cierto. No es cierto, y si fuera cierto, no me acuerdo." (Augusto Pinochet a una corte de justicia)
On 01.11.24 12:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2024-Oct-31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> When looking at our Git tree for a recent conference presentation I happened to >> notice that we have recently gained duplicate names in the shortlog. Not sure >> if we care enough to fix that with a .mailmap, but if we do the attached diff >> makes sure that all commits are accounted for a single committer entry. > > LGTM. I'd also add this line while at it: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> <peter_e@gmx.net> > > This takes care of all the duplicate "identities" in the history AFAICT. I'm not sure if this is a good use of the mailmap feature. If someone commits under <peter@companyfoo.com> for a while and then later as <peter@companybar.com>, and the mailmap maps everything to the most recent one, that seems kind of misleading or unfair? The examples on the gitmailmap man page all indicate that this feature is to correct accidental variations or obvious mistakes, but not to unify everything to the extent that it alters the historical record.
> On 1 Nov 2024, at 13:53, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 01.11.24 12:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2024-Oct-31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> When looking at our Git tree for a recent conference presentation I happened to >>> notice that we have recently gained duplicate names in the shortlog. Not sure >>> if we care enough to fix that with a .mailmap, but if we do the attached diff >>> makes sure that all commits are accounted for a single committer entry. >> LGTM. I'd also add this line while at it: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> <peter_e@gmx.net> >> This takes care of all the duplicate "identities" in the history AFAICT. > > I'm not sure if this is a good use of the mailmap feature. If someone commits under <peter@companyfoo.com> for a whileand then later as <peter@companybar.com>, and the mailmap maps everything to the most recent one, that seems kind ofmisleading or unfair? The examples on the gitmailmap man page all indicate that this feature is to correct accidentalvariations or obvious mistakes, but not to unify everything to the extent that it alters the historical record. I agree with this and propose to leave it at the originally proposed mailmap contents. -- Daniel Gustafsson
On 2024-Nov-01, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > LGTM. I'd also add this line while at it: > > > > Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> <peter_e@gmx.net> > > > > This takes care of all the duplicate "identities" in the history AFAICT. > > I'm not sure if this is a good use of the mailmap feature. If someone > commits under <peter@companyfoo.com> for a while and then later as > <peter@companybar.com>, and the mailmap maps everything to the most recent > one, that seems kind of misleading or unfair? While I would agree with this line of thinking if the situation were as you describe, it should be obvious that it isn't; nobody here uses or has ever used a work email as committer address[1][2]. Nevertheless, since this argument is about _your_ personal identity not mine, I'm not going to stand against you on it. Therefore I +1 Daniel's original proposal with thanks, and BTW I'm not sorry for changing my name to use the hard-won ' accent on it :-) > The examples on the gitmailmap man page all indicate that this feature > is to correct accidental variations or obvious mistakes, but not to > unify everything to the extent that it alters the historical record. I don't think these examples are normative. There's plenty of evidence that people look for ways to attribute contributions to individuals rather than email-based identities. See for example https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/14909 https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/main/.mailmap https://github.com/gradle/gradle/blob/master/.mailmap [1] AFAIK gmx.net is a ISP-supplied address, not a work address. [2] scrappy@hub.org and simon@2ndQuadrant.com might be considered work addresses, but they aren't really -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)
> On 5 Nov 2024, at 10:33, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Therefore I +1 Daniel's original proposal with thanks, and BTW I'm not > sorry for changing my name to use the hard-won ' accent on it :-) Done. -- Daniel Gustafsson