From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rich Midwinter Subject: Use of a mailmap file with git-log Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 10 19:23:16 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 1Ti80Z-0002NJ-Jm for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:23:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751289Ab2LJSWw (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:22:52 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:64021 "EHLO mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751252Ab2LJSWv (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:22:51 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p5so2169443lag.19 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:22:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=oKHMLCHMubBfTUA+xDc3eR9BcSvdF/yosytgKkBhADU=; b=pmNo+ewq/aGbLMRNUzDh+BqDbroCSim9Y2427hE1mwhyRQuAffx3rT2V2ZJR60jkIn ot6AzescatNX/B9OjGNlf5UWy3GpE/GrgyIVrX1QT78p5V0b8yS/k3kIhG1o7YF3W1w/ 7cAM5orM13nGVvWmLwsdaBe0dPqmZFR3GPRU6gQk7XgiOv/4qSoAY83h2PW08jU9/Ff8 GLOfoCDzKMpsCwKq4TP7ZyNXGodRft5BX435gR5CwmYxc01ZZnwkxa/04bl2NxKw5BcF dflNGnnt/bE/ghGNppiNUzNkROEdGOEcttdqw89/+2JBVMpeV1oqlQexXFuOXO8LO4z0 BhLg== Received: by 10.112.28.98 with SMTP id a2mr6382797lbh.110.1355163770042; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.99.130 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi I'm working on a project for a large organisation that wants to make widespread use of git and the mailmap feature. This seems to be supported by default in git-shortlog but not git-log (and other variants) without specifying custom formats, which isn't really something I want to try and 'fix' across the organisation. Is there a reason for this feature omission or has it just evolved that way and could it be fixed? Thanks Rich