*stops biting tongue*
To be fair, Git and Mercurial each require you to set a username/email
address in their respective configuration files. If you don't, commits
appear as originating from your login name plus some best-guess attempt
at an email address.
*watches as various folks scramble to make Fossil less like everything
else and start advocating to change this behavior*
To be clear, the username I clone a repository from is my username on
that site. If I want the usernames to agree locally and remotely, it is
my responsibility to set them equivalently. I like the current behavior.
My initial idea of what "username" meant was as some shared global
identifier, but in Fossil the username has no meaning outside of the
repository. So instead of assigning globally unique identifiers, Fossil
usernames are more like adding an SSH key to a server running some other
VCS. Anyone with the key and credentials can authenticate, but they can
then publish content to that server attributed to whomever else they
wish. If I set my name/email address to yours in a Git repository, I can
likewise publish commits that appear to originate from you.
On 12/20/2012 03:36 PM, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM, j. v. d. hoff
<veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:37:35 +0100, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote:
I'm just proposing to automate what you do manually in the considered
situation (including chosing a different local password, why not?): create
the user, make him the default, choose some (local) password. where'd be the
problem?
Well, for one, it's a violation of what POLS means (as opposed to
simply "I was surprised"). POLS means that you can correctly
extrapolate how the software will behave in some situation by
observing how it behaves in other situations. Fossil always uses the
current login name as the default user name when a repo is created
(whether by cloning or ab initio). Since that's the only observed
behavior, doing that in one particular instance can't be a violation
of POLS. In fact, if fossil were to change so that some particular
case the default user name were something else, that would be a
violation of POLS.
And as I said, just setting the user name doesn't buy anything. Either
it's a clone that's not going to have a password, in which case the
default user name is already what I want it to be, or it's going to
need a password, in which case I have to issue one command whether the
user exists or not.
I don't believe that this change would buy anything, much less enough
to warrant the violation of POLS that it calls for.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
