Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] git-svn: allow empty email-address in authors-prog and authors-file

From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Date: Mar 20, 2018, 22:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20180320220743.GA17234@whir>
In-Reply-To: <b3fce9b7-9fc7-c5a6-eaa5-a5c12ef7d492@gmail.com>

Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Am 19.03.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Eric Wong:
> > Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The email address in --authors-file and --authors-prog can be empty but
> >> git-svn translated it into a syntethic email address in the form
> >> $USERNAME@$REPO_UUID. Now git-svn behaves like git-commit: If the email
> >> is explicitly set to the empty string, the commit does not contain
> >> an email address.
> > 
> > What is missing is WHY "<>" is preferable to "<$USERNAME@$REPO_UUID>".
> >
> > $USERNAME is good anyways since projects/organizations tie their
> > SVN usernames to email usernames via LDAP, making it easy to
> > infer their email address from $USERNAME.  The latter can also
> > be used to disambiguate authors if they happen to have the same
> > real name.
> 
> That's still available and it's even still the default.

OK.

> But: If the user of git-svn takes the burden of writing an authors
> script or maintaining an authors file then he should have full control
> over the result as long as git can handle the output reasonably.
> Currently that's the case for git but not for git-svn.

Fair enough.

Show 7 quoted lines

>     jondoe <>
> 
> just means: "There is intentionally no email address." For an
> internal, ephemeral repository that can be OK. It has the advantage,
> that no automatic system (Jira, Jenkins, ...) will try to send emails to 
> 
>     jondoe <jondoe@6aafaa21e0fb4338a68ab372a049893d>

OK, that's a good reason to allow "<>" and should be in the commit message.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Further steps: Eric Sunshine mentioned [1] that you might have concerns about
> the change of behavior per se. For me the patch is not so much a new feature but
> a bugfix bringing git-svn in sync with git itself. Adding an option parameter 
> to enable the new behavior seems strange to me. But there might be other ways
> to achieve the same effect:

New options are not desirable, either, as they increase testing/maintenance overhead. So I'm inclined to take your patch with only an updated commit message...

No rush, though; will wait another bit for others to comment and I expect to be preoccupied this week with other projects and weather problems on the forecast :<