Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2021, #02; Fri, 8)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2021, 01:44 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4kjjvuqz.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <YADZSsVqyGnArF0n@google.com>

Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Secondly: it seems like a restatement of the goals of this patch would
> help guide a discussion of designs; I would be so pleased to see a
> cleaner solution than any that's been proposed so far, because I agree
> that this feature is not perfect. So please append what I have missed:
>
> Axiom: The current Git solution for avoiding deadnaming is insufficient.
> Axiom: We want to improve Git's solution for avoiding deadnaming.
> (That is, I don't think either of these statements are or should be up
> for discussion.)

Another one [*1*]:

Axiom: It is, by nature of how Git works, impossible to come up with
a solution that avoids deadnaming perfectly.  The best we can do is
to aim for "good enough".

Show 8 quoted lines

> Goal: Projects which are contributed to by trans individuals who
> transition during their contribution period should provide a good,
> supportive experience, which does not deadname the individual.
> Goal: Git's performance should not suffer unduly from any change unless
> necessary.
> Goal: Project maintainers should have an understanding of the threat
> model (e.g. automated tools scraping for names, malicious individuals
> with time on their hands and experience with the project, etc)

Goal: the design should clearly describe the thread model it
supports, so that "good enough" can be judged against it.

[Footnote]

*1* This may be clear from what both you and I said about perfection and being good enough. I usually do not like to see people punt for an imperfect solution too early without even trying, but in a case like this where we know perfection is theoretically impossible, it is a totally different story.