{"thread":{"id":"6791","subject":"stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","startedAt":"2007-02-13T04:34:48Z","lastAt":"2007-02-13T22:45:28Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Adam J. Richter","Yann Dirson","Catalin Marinas"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"34369","messageId":"200702130434.l1D4YmrA010122@freya.yggdrasil.com","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Adam J. Richter","fromEmail":"adam@yggdrasil.com","sentAt":"2007-02-13T04:34:48Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T04:34:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"adam@yggdrasil.com","avatar":null},"body":"\tFirst of all, I apologize in advance for cc'ing the busy git\nmailing list with problems about stgit. The stgit web page at\nhttp://www.procode.org/stgit/ says \"Please report bugs to Catalin\nMarinas and copy the GIT mailing list.\" I would feel less guilty\nabout whose time I was spending on reports like this if there were a\nseparate stgit-users list.\n\n\tAnyhow, here is my bug reporting, which likely is some mistake\non my part.\n\n\tI have a git tree with snapshots of linux kernel tar files, no\nbranches and no local modifications. By the way, this tree is not a\npull from the kernel.org git repository (although it will likely be\nreplaced with one in the future). Rather, this git tree one of a\ncollection git trees that correspond to tar files released on various\nftp and web repositories (i.e., there is one for gcc, one for\nbinutils, etc.).\n\n\tI also have an stgit tree of the kernel. This one has the\nlocal modifications in stgit. I just upgraded from stgit 0.11 to\n0.12, upgraded the git kernel tree from 2.6.20 to 2.6.20-git7, and\ntried to pull from the updated git tree to the stgit tree, using the\nnew stgit 0.12. stgit refused to apply the first local patch,\ncomplaining \"stg pull: unknown user details.\"\n\n\tI did the \"stg pull\" as root, did not set any of the\nGIT_AUTHOR_* environment variables and did not create any kind of git\nor stg configuration file. No doubt I could work around this by\nsetting up some kind of configuration file, but I should not be\nrequired to do so, especially just to do a \"pull\".\n\n\tI don't mind that a version control system might log user ID\nand email addresses somewhere, but it should still work if I do not\nwish to provide that information.\n\nAdam Richter\n"},{"id":"34383","messageId":"20070213073551.GT5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":"200702130434.l1D4YmrA010122@freya.yggdrasil.com","subject":"Re: stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Yann Dirson","fromEmail":"ydirson@altern.org","sentAt":"2007-02-13T07:35:51Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T07:35:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ydirson@altern.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1190950?v=4"},"body":"Hi Adam,\n\nOn Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:34:48PM +0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:\n> \tI also have an stgit tree of the kernel. This one has the\n> local modifications in stgit. I just upgraded from stgit 0.11 to\n> 0.12, upgraded the git kernel tree from 2.6.20 to 2.6.20-git7, and\n> tried to pull from the updated git tree to the stgit tree, using the\n> new stgit 0.12. stgit refused to apply the first local patch,\n> complaining \"stg pull: unknown user details.\"\n\nThis is a known issue, which is reported in the StGit bugtracker as\nhttps://gna.org/bugs/?8452\nStGit should surely use the same info as git does.\n\nBest regards,\n-- \nYann.\n"},{"id":"34394","messageId":"b0943d9e0702130240x1822f882t4f0d1780647d98ad@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":"200702130434.l1D4YmrA010122@freya.yggdrasil.com","subject":"Re: stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Catalin Marinas","fromEmail":"catalin.marinas@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-02-13T10:40:49Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T10:40:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"catalin.marinas@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On 13/02/07, Adam J. Richter wrote:\n> First of all, I apologize in advance for cc'ing the busy git\n\nGmail decided this mail is spam, probably because of the \"apologize\"\nword (frequent in the Nigerian letters :-)).\n\n> mailing list with problems about stgit. The stgit web page at\n> http://www.procode.org/stgit/ says \"Please report bugs to Catalin\n> Marinas and copy the GIT mailing list.\" I would feel less guilty\n> about whose time I was spending on reports like this if there were a\n> separate stgit-users list.\n\nI asked the GIT people some time ago and they were OK with porcelain\ntools postings here. They should let me know if it become annoying.\nYou could also use https://gna.org/bugs/?group=stgit for reporting\nbugs (or search for previous reports).\n\n> I did the \"stg pull\" as root, did not set any of the\n> GIT_AUTHOR_* environment variables and did not create any kind of git\n> or stg configuration file. No doubt I could work around this by\n> setting up some kind of configuration file, but I should not be\n> required to do so, especially just to do a \"pull\".\n\nA quick fix is to run:\n\ngit repo-config --global user.name \"Adam J. Richter\"\ngit repo-config --global user.email adam@yggdrasil.com\n\n> I don't mind that a version control system might log user ID\n> and email addresses somewhere, but it should still work if I do not\n> wish to provide that information.\n\nAs Yann said, there is already a bug logged for this issue. I also\nthink there is a different issue mailed me yesterday with the same\nthing when pushing a patch, even though the patch author/committer\ninformation was already in the patch metadata handled by StGIT.\n\nI'll have a look at this.\n\n-- \nCatalin\n"},{"id":"34456","messageId":"20070213183214.GU5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":"b0943d9e0702130240x1822f882t4f0d1780647d98ad@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Yann Dirson","fromEmail":"ydirson@altern.org","sentAt":"2007-02-13T18:32:14Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T18:32:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ydirson@altern.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1190950?v=4"},"body":"BTW, I wondered why we need to store author and committer info in the\npatch dir. Shouldn't the info from the Git commit be authoritative ?\n\nAlso, a quick glance at the code lets me think those information are\nonly changed in a patch when explicit flags are given to various\ncommands. Shouldn't we, in addition set committer to current user\nduring refresh, and possibly non-forwarding push ?\n\nBest regards,\n-- \nYann.\n"},{"id":"34473","messageId":"b0943d9e0702131431q2d5ab9bay9d7d0f0d1cd2af02@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":"20070213183214.GU5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net","subject":"Re: stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Catalin Marinas","fromEmail":"catalin.marinas@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-02-13T22:31:41Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T22:31:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"catalin.marinas@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On 13/02/07, Yann Dirson wrote:\n> BTW, I wondered why we need to store author and committer info in the\n> patch dir. Shouldn't the info from the Git commit be authoritative ?\n\nThe initial idea was to store them only if the user requested on the\ncommand line. I later added the configuration file and they were\nalways set.\n\nI pushed a patch that allows stgit to work with the git defaults if\nthere is no configuration available. Let me know if you find it OK so\nwe can close the bug.\n\nBTW, we should get a 0.12.1 release out with some bug-fixes.\n\n-- \nCatalin\n"},{"id":"34477","messageId":"20070213224528.GV5362@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net","threadId":"6791","inReplyTo":"b0943d9e0702131431q2d5ab9bay9d7d0f0d1cd2af02@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: stgit \"unknown user details\" bug?","fromName":"Yann Dirson","fromEmail":"ydirson@altern.org","sentAt":"2007-02-13T22:45:28Z","receivedAt":"2007-02-13T22:45:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ydirson@altern.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1190950?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:31:41PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:\n> BTW, we should get a 0.12.1 release out with some bug-fixes.\n\nRight, fixing the pull bug should be done ASAP. I'll try to have a\nlook at it tomorrow.\n"}]}