Re: co-authoring commits
- From
josh@joshtriplett.org <josh@joshtriplett.org>
- Date
- Jun 17, 2015, 20:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20150617205931.GB24079@cloud>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAOvwQ4j2bjR1jnLVyZbw1OCE=xQxbCEFGKcK1bpuv1K3s_Y2EQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:26:32PM +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Is this something that breaks the design and would never be > > > implemented, > > > > Yes. > > Junio, thanks for the quick response. > > I suppose things have changed since Jonathan Nieder's response in [1] > (2010), or I've read too much into the mini-thread between Jonathan > and Josh. I was under the impression that this is generally possible > without shaking up all underpinnings. > > For what it's worth, here's why I would use the feature: > > By allowing multiple authors, you don't have to decide who's the > primary author, as in such situations usually there is no primary at > all. I sometimes deliberately override the author when committing and > add myself just as another co-author in the commit message, but as > others have noted it would be really great if we can just specify > multiple authors.
Having more than one author field in a commit would likely break things, but having a coauthor field seems plausible these days. Git added support for signed commits, and the world didn't end, so it's possible to extend the commit format.
- Josh Triplett