From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 292DC1BBBF2 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 21:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723672393; cv=none; b=QPl6oSKoUif+whm1AJik6OF49kms8qPsSCHrwRwmXeVIvRf3zYnYlDHBbQs8ui2x4A3I4MOjAaBNKMvV76t/zAYj6cItQR1AYMijtCtDB1aSo2ieMHrt8Dqiw/iG3XGZSm6q1HTOlj4ltQrrnKMtm//DB2O3U1T3VNnll/gEBwM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723672393; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c1BUVKMb7aZcdqeTLq5bS1gkA8J4Ojr3v+MiIaGnNe8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FA0hr658+Rn5iZrEoXlxlnvD3mMc34HrFQhH0CfAJAeBUSjo0Bgllv8uJLgGK61LOQ5gp5OAI5jPEzIOAzIsFrlVn/1JLV1UPbeaO3e8IAA+abLn6e7uO0BSHXpOMKIJgm1xFB0B8PGPUwUcst6VwOzxdHkzMNXxKAE3jv3nigY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=FutghiZc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="FutghiZc" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985042B9CA; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:53:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=c1BUVKMb7aZcdqeTLq5bS1gkA8J4Ojr3v+MiIa GnNe8=; b=FutghiZc3LAazCd276xQsJcRvQS4Dp6qvMRd4T79dPYv//tFB3nPGG 0hE/mjTSMEy1CW8K8w2m4M4eNUz1ZjVyj0IZb+aL/TBtML6ZGpUlmkT0sB/1StMa KlK9hqaVlzkrnNNdMJo7VX6hUcBBP5pdnUefuARNKiQamjdMaoyEE= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A9A2B9C9; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:53:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B6B62B9C8; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:53:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jacob Keller , Anthony Nguyen Subject: Re: [PATCH] format-patch: add support for mailmap file In-Reply-To: <20240813-jk-support-mailmap-git-format-patch-v1-1-1aea690ea5dd@gmail.com> (Jacob Keller's message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:45:22 -0700") References: <20240813-jk-support-mailmap-git-format-patch-v1-1-1aea690ea5dd@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 14:53:04 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 964F0FE2-5A87-11EF-8B85-E92ED1CD468F-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Jacob Keller writes: > diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c > index 4d4b60caa76a..94560add6fbc 100644 > --- a/builtin/log.c > +++ b/builtin/log.c > @@ -975,6 +975,7 @@ struct format_config { > struct log_config log; > enum thread_level thread; > int do_signoff; > + int use_mailmap; As we share the "--[no-]mailmap" option from the command line with "git log", shouldn't we be able to reuse log.use_mailmap_config as well without adding yet another member to the struct? "git log" defaults use_mailmap_config to true, but this command would want to default it to false to avoid disrupting existing users, or something, perhaps? > diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > index 8708b3159309..f3de349990bf 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ SYNOPSIS > [--range-diff= [--creation-factor=]] > [--filename-max-length=] > [--progress] > + [(--mailmap|--no-mailmap|--use-mailmap|--no-use-mailmap)] We seem to say "[--[no-]cover-letter]" to abbreviate, and because "--[no-]use-mailmap" is merely a synonym, shouldn't it be sufficient to say [--[no-]mailmap] without any other frills? I find the use of the (al|terna|tive) here especially annoying, as it is not like it is an error if you give "--mailmap" and then say "--no-mailmap" later on the same command line---it's just the usual "last one wins". I haven't decided what my response to Peff's concern on the fallout to "rebase --apply". On one hand, those who conciously choose to rebase by creating patches and applying them would find it puzzling if it did not honor format.mailmap setting. But I would not be strongly opposed if we hardcoded to pass "--no-mailmap" to the internal invocation of "format-patch", just like we hardcode "-k" and other options and justified it with "the use of format-patch is a mere implementation detail". Thanks.