On 15 September 2015 at 21:36, Frank Ch. Eigler <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> cagney = Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> >> [email protected]? > > Good point. The email identities of people change over time; forcing > a single arbitrary one to label all contributions is at best imprecise > and at worse a miscrediting. (This is one way in which the impersonal > [email protected] aliases work better.)
It strikes me as the least bad and quickest option. It also best reflects how CVS and SVN deal with identities. (Would it go hand-in-hand with a git commit hook ensuring that future commits preserve this convention? Just asking) Two other options come to mind: - preserve history That is create a repo that gives the appearance that we had git all along. It would be high quality, useful, and most git-like; and also one hell of a lot of work :-/ For instance, it might include commits by: Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> While they are all the same individual, they reflect different points in time. If we'd had git all along then this, I believe, is what the repository would have contained. There would certainly be no expectation that 20 year old addresses were still valid, or that they need "fixing". - rewrite history - use some totally arbitrary, and quickly outdated, internet identity To me this makes the least sense. If I change my name/contact do I have the repo rewritten with that new information? Am I forever required to use an arbitrarily assigned identity? Hardly.
