From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 8/8] send-email: do not prompt for explicit repo ident Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:11:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20121116201107.GA5740@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20121115083315.GA23377@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121115104345.GA32465@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121115111334.GA1879@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcd6954q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121115172845.GA20298@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vzk2i6s9h.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121116190811.GB2310@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast , Jonathan Nieder To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 16 21:11:26 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TZSG5-0003z9-NO for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:11:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753480Ab2KPULM (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:11:12 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:50615 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753381Ab2KPULL (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:11:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 30608 invoked by uid 107); 16 Nov 2012 20:12:00 -0000 Received: from 204-16-157-26-static.ipnetworksinc.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (204.16.157.26) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:12:00 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:11:08 -0800 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about > > exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with > > Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may > > not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may > > want it). > > Well, who is using user_ident_sufficiently_given() in the first place? > I think 'git commit' might be suffering from the same problem that > prompted you to split it. It is just `git commit` now. It does not suffer from the problems that prompted the author/committer split: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/209635 To expand on what I wrote there, we cannot hit case 2 because we always ask for the committer within the same process. Case 1 is not interesting, because we would only fail to show it if is identical to a non-implicit committer (so even if it was implicit, we know that it is a sane value). -Peff