From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 23:16:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Dealing with corporate email recycling
Message-ID: <xmqqtuc1tpdj.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <87ilsha2b7.fsf@gmail.com>

Sean Allred <allred.sean@gmail.com> writes:

> rather than use magic comments :-) Adapting to your suggestion, this
> might look like the following:
>
>     A. U. Thor <foo@example.com> <ada.example.com> <[ approxidate ]>

You'd probably want a timerange (valid-from and valid-to), instead
of one single timestamp?

Because at least three valid forms of mailmap entries should be
understood by the current generation of mailmap readers, i.e.

    Human Readable Name <e-mail@add.re.ss>
    Right Name <right@add.re.ss> <wrong@add.re.ss>
    Right Name <right@add.re.ss> Wrong Name <wrong@add.re.ss>

the extended entry format to record the validity timerange should
be chosen to cause parsers that are prepared to take these three
kinds of lines to barf and ignore.