From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:36:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Add support for git's mailmap.
In-Reply-To: <2219e113-66c7-e0a1-664a-d160d43449d6@bnl.gov>
References: <7b18e5bf-635b-7773-e352-c9a54ab46a20@bnl.gov>
 <2219e113-66c7-e0a1-664a-d160d43449d6@bnl.gov>
Message-ID: <20171028113646.GG2393@john.keeping.me.uk>

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:55:21AM -0400, Jason A. Smith wrote:
> Seeing a lot of recent activity I checked the upstream and see that the 
> patch I first submitted over a year ago has still not been merged. I 
> already had to rebase it once several months ago to fix conflicts, I 
> don't want to have to do that again. Is there something wrong with this 
> patch? Please let me know so I can fix it.

I've taken another look at this patch and one thing that stands out is
that we end up inserting code to map users in a lot of different places.
I haven't audited the code, but after the final patch, is there anywhere
that calls cgit_parse_commit() and doesn't go on to map the users?
(Even if not all callers do map the user, can we push cgit_map_user()
into cgit_parse_commit() and use a flag parameter to enable it?)

But I think that points to a deeper philosophical question of whether we
should be mapping the user in all cases (and I suspect this is why the
patch has sat on the list for so long - there are arguments in both
directions).

As I understand it, mailmap was originally introduced so that
git-shortlog would coalesce commits from the same author but with
different email addresses.  When using the git command, mailmap is
enabled by default for git-shortlog and git-blame but not for git-log,
git-show, and other commands that print commits.

Extending this to CGit, it seems that there's a clear argument for
enabling mailmap in ui-stats and possibly the new ui-blame, but when we
print a commit in ui-commit or ui-log is it always correct to apply the
mailmap or should we show the commit headers as-is?

It would be interesting to know what others on the list think about
this.  If there isn't a consensus then we may want a new config option
to allow this to be enabled according to the preferences of individual
sites.