On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I'm not sure how orthogonal it is. The latter half of my series is about > > exposing the user_ident_sufficiently_given() flag. If we go with > > Felipe's patch, then that exposed information has no users, and it may > > not be worth it (OTOH, it's possible that some third-party script may > > want it). > > Well, who is using user_ident_sufficiently_given() in the first place? > I think 'git commit' might be suffering from the same problem that > prompted you to split it.
It is just `git commit` now. It does not suffer from the problems that prompted the author/committer split: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/209635 To expand on what I wrote there, we cannot hit case 2 because we always ask for the committer within the same process. Case 1 is not interesting, because we would only fail to show it if is identical to a non-implicit committer (so even if it was implicit, we know that it is a sane value). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
