Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 03:32:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > It also raises a question for the proposal in this thread: if there are >> > multiple "Author:" lines, which one do we take? The first, or the last? >> >> I was siding with David's "pay attention to in-buffer Author: only >> when all of them agree". When squash-merging a branch with two or >> more authors, we would attribute the authorship silently and >> automatically to you if you do not do anything special otherwise. > > That's probably reasonable. I was thinking more of a case where you made > some fixups on top of somebody else's branch, and then used "git rebase > -i" to squash them together. But I think we already use the authorship > for the root of the squash in that case. > > This case collapses nicely if we make a slight tweak to your proposed > behavior (or maybe this is what you meant). If there are multiple > authors listed, we behave as if none was listed. That would leave the > authorship as it behaves today (with the author of the first commit) if > you do nothing, or you can override it by dropping all but one.
I actually was (and am still) wondering that "silently ignore all of them if there are multiple ones that contradict with each other" is a bad idea, and that was why the last item on the "possible alternatives" list was to error out and ask clarification. -- 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
