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

[Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 07:41, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> wrote:
> El 19/03/2010, a las 14:13, Michael Witten escribió:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 07:08, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Maybe you have to define entropy.  For human consumers, "Paolo Bonzini
>>> <pbonzini@redhat.com>" has considerably less "entropy" than
>>> 8aacc35ffca0d34fccf8a750e84e3a81bdcb940b, as does even "Paolo Bonzini
>>> <bonzini@gnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com>".  For non-human consumers, a good
>>> mailmap will do.
>>
>> As I've stated before many times, the SHA-1 is not necessary to the proposal.
>>
>> Please go read.
>
> Stop telling people to go read your idiotic proposal. It has _already_ been read with great attention, and multiple people have shown immense patience repeatedly explaining to you why the idea is stupid. Your continued trolling is really starting to grate.

I've shown immense patience repeatedly explaining why these
'explanations' are strawmen or based on misunderstandings and bad
assumptions.

It's true that I have been receiving perfectly valid complaints. The
problem is that almost all of them have nothing to do with what I've
been saying because people see 'uuid' and a few examples with hex
digits and then erroneously construct the rest in their heads.

> The overwhelming, sustained opposition to your idea should already be enough indication that such a proposal will _never_ be accepted into the Git codebase, so right now you're just wasting people's time.

I long ago gave up the notion that it would be included in the git codebase.

Instead, I've been defending the idea, which is a simple but vast
improvement over the current system; had it been in place since the
beginning, a lot of trouble could have been reduced.

Indeed, the only thing that makes this great idea a bad idea is
COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS; that's it.