On 09/16/2015 09:26 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On 15 September 2015 at 21:36, Frank Ch. Eigler <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
cagney = Andrew Cagney <cag...@redhat.com>
cag...@gnu.org?
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
use...@gcc.gnu.org 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 <cag...@highland.com.au>
Andrew Cagney <cag...@b1.cygnus.com>
Andrew Cagney <ac131...@redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney <cag...@gnu.org>
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".
So true, but as you note, it'd probably be a ton of additional work to
preserve that level of history.
- rewrite history - use some totally arbitrary, and quickly outdated,
internet identity
I think this is main reason why @gnu.org or @gmail.com style addresses
are preferred over employer addresses when there's > 1 address on file.
Jeff
ps. Good to hear from you... It's been a long time.
