Re: What's in a name? Let's use a (uuid,name,email) triplet

[Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>]

Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:41, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Michael Witten wrote:
>>> Rather than use a (name,email) pair to identify people, let's use
>>> a (uuid,name,email) triplet.
>>> [...]
>> A UUID doesn't need to be a big hex number.  All it has to be is a
>> "Universally Unique Identifier".  Like, oh, for example, your
>>
>>                   *** EMAIL ADDRESS ***
>>
>> [1].  There is even already a way to fix up mistakes or unavoidable
>> email address changes, namely the .mailmap file.
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> You've just repeated everything that I've said; go look at the rest of
> the thread, where I spend plenty of time correcting the same hangups
> about my choice of the word UUID and my use of hex digits.

No, my point is to use the *existing* email address as the UUID
*without* adding another field.  Nothing needs to be changed!

> [...] You could use
> "Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>" as your uuid, and you could
> still use it after you change the `email' config variable to something
> else.

Give me a break.  It's not so damn hard to keep an email address over
time.  And if it changes, I can update the .mailcap file to map my old
email address to the new one and *presto* I have a new, equally valid
UUID that I can continue to commit under.

> I cover all of this numerous times in numerous rebuttals; don't
> contribute to a thread with more than 60 emails without having read at
> least some of them.

Wrong.  I've read the whole idiotic thread.  To prove it I'll summarize
it for you: you argue the same point over and over again while ignoring
the legitimate objections of just about every other participant.

Adding a new UUID field is obviously a non-starter, so I suggested a way
to get the same (very marginal) benefit from the fields that are already
present in every git repository.

Michael