From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:25:31 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Add support for git's mailmap.
In-Reply-To: <7da6b0ad-400c-fca2-16c9-fcd9fc6d9e91@bnl.gov>
References: <7b18e5bf-635b-7773-e352-c9a54ab46a20@bnl.gov>
 <2219e113-66c7-e0a1-664a-d160d43449d6@bnl.gov>
 <20171028113646.GG2393@john.keeping.me.uk>
 <7da6b0ad-400c-fca2-16c9-fcd9fc6d9e91@bnl.gov>
Message-ID: <20171105122531.GC2348@john.keeping.me.uk>

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:48:08PM -0400, Jason A. Smith wrote:
> I always thought that by going through the trouble of collecting the 
> duplicate email addresses and creating the .mailmap file that you wanted 
> this coalescing behavior.
> 
> Personally, I don't really want to have to remember everyone's old email 
> address and variation of their name that they might have used several 
> years ago to push a commit. I don't really care what email & name they 
> used a long time ago, I am more interested in just knowing who made the 
> commit, which is why the .mailmap coalesces all of their old identities 
> into their current one for display.
> 
> If people don't need or want this coalescing behavior and want to see 
> each individual identity then they don't need to make the .mailmap file 
> to begin with.

Consider someone working on an open source project who changes employer;
in this case .mailmap allows email to be directed to an address at the
new employer rather than at the previous employer, especially for
auto-generated CC lists from something like Linux's get_maintainer.pl
script.

However, when looking at historic commits, it may be very interesting
that a particular change was committed by someone with an email address
at a cerain company.  Blindly applying .mailmap rules loses that
information (admittedly, in the case of the kernel, DCO rules mean the
relevant information also lives in the S-o-b but that doesn't apply
everywhere).

On the other hand, it might be that some early commits by a developer in
a project use the default "user@(none)" fallback address and .mailmap is
used to change that to a genuine email address.  In that case applying
.mailmap in all cases is desirable.

I don't think we can take a global decision on which behaviour is
correct for all projects, so IMHO there must be a configuration switch
to allow projects to decide what is right for them.

> On 10/28/2017 07:36 AM, John Keeping wrote:
> > 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.