On 25/06/2024 10:05, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
Hi,

Andrew Stubbs <a...@baylibre.com> writes:

On 24/06/2024 23:34, Arsen Arsenović via Gcc wrote:
I was also proposing (and would like to re-air that here) enforcing that
the committer field of each commit is a (valid) @gcc.gnu.org email.
This can be configured repo-locally via:
    $ git config committer.email <yourname>@gcc.gnu.org
Git has supported this since 39ab4d0951ba64edcfae7809740715991b44fa6d
(v2.22.0).
This makes a permanent association of each commit to its authors
Sourceware account.
This should not inhibit pushes, as the committer should be a reflection
of who /applied/ a patch, and anyone applying a patch that can also push
has a Sourceware account.  It also should not inhibit any workflow, as
it should be automatic.

This will make it hard to a) find emails from a maintainer/committer in the
mailing list archives -- since it's not generally possible to send "From:" a
@gcc.gnu.org address -- and b) make it hard to compile statistics about
contributions from corporate domains (which people do do).

I'm not sure that is the case - the committer field is separate to the
author field, so all statistics one could do with the author field
remain unaltered.  For instance (as I've been doing that for a while),
here's what a commit of mine looks like under that scheme:

   commit 36cb7be477885a2464fe9a70467278c7debd5e79
   Author:     Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me>
   AuthorDate: Thu Nov 16 23:50:30 2023 +0100
   Commit:     Arsen Arsenović <ar...@gcc.gnu.org>
   CommitDate: Wed Dec 13 13:17:35 2023 +0100

       gettext: disable install, docs targets, libasprintf, threads

More often than not, the committer field is redundant with the author
field.

The email I use for correspondence is still present (and, in fact, is
the only one visible with the default git log and show formats).

It is possible that someone could be doing statistics based on the
committer field, if they also want to, say, count patches applied by
members of some company, but I'm not sure how wide-spread that is.

OK; fair point.

Andrew

Reply via email to