Idea: indirect authorship info

Hi,

I have an idea about enabling management of authorship info in a git repo, to make it easier to manage and potentially remove author/committer/tagger PII (in the context of GDPR), without having to change any commit history/SHAs. Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I failed to find anything relevant from some quick searches:

- https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=indirect+authors
- https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=authors+file
- https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=people+file

Potential use cases:

- Someone requests that their names and email addresses be removed from a public
  repo's history under GDPR Right to be Forgotten (although, based on [1], it's
  not clear if projects could be forced to do honour RTBF or not)
- Someone requests that their legal name change be reflected in a public repo

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this basic idea:

- On committing/tagging/creating a note, the identity of the author is not saved
  in the commit etc. object itself but in a separate file e.g. `.git/people`:
  `d0efaf97-e18a-4197-b2c0-61c05efec75e <-> Yawar Amin <yawar.amin@gmail.com>`
- Instead of the real identity of the author, a pointer to the `people` file
  entry is stored e.g. `Author: d0efaf97-e18a-4197-b2c0-61c05efec75e`
- If an entry for the person already exists in the `people` file, it is reused
- When syncing with a remote repo, new entries in the `people` file are synced
  along with other objects (in an append-only manner, not editing existing
  entries)
- Git uses the `people` file to cross-reference and fill in authorship
  info when it renders commit etc. objects like in `git log`, `git show` etc.
- If git can't find the authorship info in the `people` file it renders some
  appropriate default e.g. `(Unknown)`

Project owners (with write access to the hosted repo) are able to edit and push changes to the `people` file. In this way they can fulfill change requests like the ones I mentioned above.

Regards,

Yawar

[1] https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/individuals/know-your-rights/right-erasure-articles-17-19-gdpr

Yawar Amin <yawar.amin@gmail.com> writes:

Try "mailmap+deadname". You essentially reinvented these earlier proposals, except that they reused the existing ".mailmap" mechanism, and how the key is chosen.

While I do not think of any reason why the desire to achieve the end goal of these efforts is bad, some parts of your design (and other proposals) need rethinking.

Projects often need to know and show who did what for legal reasons. Imagine an old commit needs to be shown to document who made the contribution to the project. An in-tree ".mailmap" file can give adequate guarantee that the anatomized commit author name the commit carries documents who it the really is in the ".mailmap" file recorded in the tree of that partcular commit, even if some contributors who stopped contributing and asked to go back to anonymity have disappeared from that file. But they may still appear if you did "git log -p .mailmap", which would meet the needs of these projects, but it means that you cannot be forgotten and have to live with the consequences of what you did in the past. On the other hand, if there is no in-tree ".mailmap" (or "people") file, it brings up many questions. It becomes unclear who will keep track of the latest version. There needs a way to guarantee that the entries still in the mapping file can be used to verify the claim that some person did a particular commit. Of course, as long as it is distributed to project participants for communication ("hey you worked on this feature 6 months ago; can you answer a few questions?") and verification ("yes, this commit was done by this person who was not affiliated with company X in any way. how do you substantiate your claim that this project stole it from the company?") purposes, somebody will bound to make and keep copies, which means that you cannot become truly anonymous, after making yourself known.

As to the choice of the anonymous key used as a stand-in value for the author and the committer identity, using something that is not deterministic (like uuid) is not a good idea. If the name/address are hashed with some algorithm that is cryptographically secure and is one-way, it would probably suffice both for anonymity purposes (as you need to "reverse" such a hash to get to the real author) and allows easy verification (if you need to "prove" that an anonymised author 9f5d8e44edfb7e1aa4dcf34acc3b4d643f83e1b6 recorded in the commit object is an author with a known name/address, you can feed that name/address to the hash function and if it hashes to the same value, that claim is as good as having the name/address directly recorded in the commit object.