From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git should not use a default user.email config value Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <20130810065252.GC30185@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130809134236.28143.75775.reportbug@tglase.lan.tarent.de> <20130809194214.GV14690@google.com> <20130809223758.GB7160@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v38qi4g7r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130810061720.GA30185@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130810064056.GA3165@elie.Belkin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Thorsten Glaser , git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 10 08:53:09 2013 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 1V832y-0005Zj-CX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:53:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161159Ab3HJGw6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:52:58 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:54203 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161147Ab3HJGwz (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:52:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 27133 invoked by uid 102); 10 Aug 2013 06:52:55 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 01:52:55 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:52:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130810064056.GA3165@elie.Belkin> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:40:56PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > Even if it worked, though, I am not sure it would be worth such a rule. > > The /etc/mailname file is not a standard, so you would effectively be > > cutting off the auto-ident behavior for people on every other system. If > > we are going to do that, we might as well do it uniformly. > > I don't fully follow. Do you mean that because other operating > systems choose not to make full use of an /etc/mailname file when it > is present (and instead use per-MTA configuration), git should not > take advantage of it to choose an appropriate email address? > > Or do you mean that on non-Debian systems, the FQDN for localhost is > reliably the mailname, just like on Debian systems /etc/mailname is > supposed to be? Sorry to be unclear. I meant that treating /etc/mailname and gethostname differently might be justified on Debian under the logic "if you have /etc/mailname, that is a trustworthy address, and if you do not, then we cannot guess at a trustworthy address (because putting it in /etc/mailname is the accepted way to do so on Debian)". But such logic would not extend to other operating systems, where /etc/mailname does not have such a status. I am guessing, too, about what people even put in /etc/mailname. If they relay mail from the machine to a smarthost, do they put the individual hostname into /etc/mailname? Or do they put in the domain name that represents a real deliverable address? If the former, then it is no better than gethostname anyway. -Peff