From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a3-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.154]) (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 B7FC428980A for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762812409; cv=none; b=EDSthGu7VYIM8Fy4S/J7UTU7rEHGDCHPy6OL55EZ9Lczwru4kGcIqf2s4Je6oWuO3OaWccieDEhRb7PhTkrWI4rl1qcZTkOv8UJkhP55vBqWgQxl58XBEINzs4uYqP+4gAA11ENws0UhujzV1QXkhsQQddeIq4kVJATzS3gLcqk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762812409; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ybeFrEaGf5aYjCzc+xnhz8rQuYk0Ek00jXhjaFPVaoU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Dd85A8W7int24tJQExd2aUxeGSKwEur1v2zJnKuaS2LDEOxr//1IBFd5nhucu7ichUSUnDMspWXEdY/deA6Y8YqSa/os7L15unIaTrDnPi3yKSSznbuFUSntmuhmd4xuuv+NvLBcqgHozHBgaIdZVto5RF5ylZsXf7Hd94PIEgw= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=NW0i/cSE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=hf4Nq7/S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.154 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="NW0i/cSE"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="hf4Nq7/S" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C1D14000BE; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:06:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1762812405; x=1762898805; bh=HN9vP1rac2 sZc/kX1vB5VL4jnMkhcolyXkeQfmADLmY=; b=NW0i/cSE+rJmSeDyHFDU9nl2b8 4G//jEJqS/zee+BFMB03Q5ilOXw5uuok54FTrmDRX/BNLjt+Oko1HYCAZfjuhPA+ FcvJTC1AkZUjkiCuGarPdvN+OpC5FoUu5F8RZRqE4gQX1aRYMvyiVIxV1l+L49CJ YBiNMqEvAD+V37QjzIbSka8oVw5krZeD9vA43X1bNNVObmHWtseKxDhEgfWRzR7Y WBZsHSAsyDFMReKOfzbVMmKu4W/QT3sWB1Op2pPa1Nw4ZhywfXX+3/fSKASG3SXS Mv29FM7fAp13QD2cFuAkyrOihfm6qApJL0m+L/8hFMU50vFLDBZFSPwwGlLw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1762812405; x=1762898805; bh=HN9vP1rac2sZc/kX1vB5VL4jnMkhcolyXke QfmADLmY=; b=hf4Nq7/SXEdfQR/b/HtjzdPRh7awLIWYZHgb2CIBtt0k3/xkAfx 1lm1s3OZHLUq4wIH1/ait/wyzUA4rCNhiqMCL5psTV4Nt//KCApn/yVorh0ISD1z TAUICVfIjdBieh8LCMzQhBwCt+2xujh75JHWdtZlPmDZKMVz8XyagD49X8nyXpdt x3RzS5FELD9nf6FXhEciYS+yVMLI/UjlN8CRYjnr1LpeBfv3pDlrU5qIP15dUftC OrmDDQIkixKu4D726O9nKakinsh8RZdcUa4Aj6UpySJSIGPfNQAW7ZFHljtK0q6k /ko2ltYjtzqiA7L5WFpFxU9i+/ck6CH+dMA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdduleelgeeiucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhope hsrghnuggrlhhssegtrhhushhthihtohhothhhphgrshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthho pehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougesughunhgvlhhmrdhorhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhope hgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehv ghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheprggulhhtvghrnhgrthhivhgvse hgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:06:44 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: "brian m. carlson" , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, ZheNing Hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit: add --committer option In-Reply-To: <20251110201136.GB127132@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:11:36 -0500") References: <6be20c41-15a0-4732-bd12-4927a59a9f59@gmail.com> <20251110201136.GB127132@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:06:43 -0800 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 Jeff King writes: > Is a "--committer" option the best solution there, though? I'd think > you'd want to set user.* in the repo-level .git/config (or using a > dir-specific include) would be less error-prone. > > That doesn't help for using two identities for the same repo, but in my > experience it is easier to use two separate repositories for that to > match the organization of the work (even if you may sometimes fetch > between them). This happens to match my experience, but my use case may be rather skewed. The two sets of contents managed by my two clones that push into the same repository (of course to two different branches) are rather disjoint and they never merge into each other (in fact they do not even share the root commit). If you are working under two identities on the same codebase, I would imagine that two repo arrangement may be more cumbersome than working in a single repository and switching between the identities, and may be preferrable as long as you are confident that you won't commit a change under the "other" (wrong) identity. Of course, your reflogs and notes would also follow the "then-current" committer identity, so if I were to flip between two identities while working on the same codebase in a single repository, I am very likely to export GIT_{AUTHOR,COMMITTER}_* environment variables, dedicate that shell/window to the work done under that identity, and switch the environment variables if/when I want to switch (or have another shell/window with the other identities exported---perhaps I'd do that in a secondary worktree). I cannot imagine myself keep giving --author and --committer between my two identities without mistakes. > I'm not totally opposed to the new flag, and in general I'd defer to > people who say they find a new feature useful. I'm just having a hard > time imagining a scenario where it's the best option. Same here. The "give them long enough rope" principle tells me that this may be worth having if even only to have symmetry with existing "--author" option, but these two are not inherently symmetric to begin with, and I am not sure if there is a scenario in which this new option is the best thing to use.