Re: [RFE] Please add name and email to git credentials

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 2, 2018, 17:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20181102175605.GA17353@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <841569ad61dd5f4f5424e8c2860a4c01f146c8a1.camel@laposte.net>

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 06:32:36PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > I did create the way git credential matches repo urls. And I do not
> > think your proposal is a good idea. The credential system is about
> > interacting with a remote URL, and creating a commit object is a local
> > operation. That mismatch leaks through when you work with multiple
> > remotes, since it is not clear which URL we would match against when
> > the operation does not involve a remote at all.
> 
> I don't think it's quite that simple. The id part of creating a commit
> object is not a local operation at all. You choose the id written in a
> commit for a specific remote target, it has no use locally, most of us
> do not need it to reach themselves.

I don't think that's true. You do not need to have a remote at all to use Git.

But more importantly, the commit is not in any way tied to a specific remote. You might have multiple remotes that are storing many of the same objects. So even if you wanted to somehow assign a segment of history to a remote, it is not an unambiguous mapping.

> So yes there is a leak but it’s built in the git commit logic itself.
> Ideally, git would defer resolving <me> in commits to when I push to a
> remote target. I'm sure you’re aware of all the workarounds git users do
> at push time, when they realize the commit <me> is not the good one.

Your second sentence is fundamentally at odds with how Git works and its decentralized data model.

Show 6 quoted lines

> And since the leak is built in the commit logic itself, there are no
> perfect solutions that do not involve revisiting how commit works.
> 
> So, unless someone wants to revisit git commit, we’re left with
> imperfect solutions, and git credentials is no worse than another. It
> certainly fixes my use case fine. You did good work in git credentials.

Sorry, I just don't agree with any of the logic here. That's not how commits work in Git, and all of the solutions are not equally imperfect.

-Peff