From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit: match explicit-ident semantics for summary and template Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20100118014735.GA6831@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20100117193401.GA28448@coredump.intra.peff.net> <201001172153.44413.j6t@kdbg.org> <7viqb0xubf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 18 02:47:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NWgig-0001j7-Oj for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:47:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751998Ab0ARBrl (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751327Ab0ARBrl (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:41 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:59084 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751114Ab0ARBrk (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 31808 invoked by uid 107); 18 Jan 2010 01:52:31 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:31 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7viqb0xubf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 02:03:48PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > We could say something like > > if (!(user_ident_explicitly_given & IDENT_EMAIL_GIVEN)) > > and it probably is a safer change on platforms with GECOS available, but > then wouldn't msysgit folks have to fork this code? I hadn't thought to be specific to "email must be given". That is, I had assumed if you gave a name but not email, you would also be considered competent enough to avoid the warning. But I really can't see anybody doing that, so the semantics you suggest above are fine by me. As far as Windows goes, I have no opinion on the correct behavior. But if they are going to do something different, your encapsulation makes sense to me. -Peff