Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Hello, A trivial enhancement request: All commands which require that the author is set (and complain if it is not set) should accept the option --author. At least the command stash does not accept this option. We are using git version 2.17.1 (Ubuntu 18.04). Thanks for the great work! Best regards -Ulrich -- | Ulrich Gemkow | University of Stuttgart | Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Hi Ulrich, On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, Ulrich Gemkow wrote: > A trivial enhancement request: > > All commands which require that the author is set (and complain if > it is not set) should accept the option --author. > > At least the command stash does not accept this option. We are using > git version 2.17.1 (Ubuntu 18.04). The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, as it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant to be a vital part of the `stash`. I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for `git stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. However, to get you unblocked: what you ask for exists already, in some form: git \ -c user.name="Ulrich Gemkow" \ -c user.email=ulrich.gem...@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de \ stash Granted, this is not the nicest way to specify it, but you are probably scripting things for environments where you do not really want to configure an author, right? Ciao, Johannes
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Johannes Schindelin writes: > The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, as > it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes > are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant to > be a vital part of the `stash`. > > I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for `git > stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. This would make a good bite-sized microproject, worth marking it as #leftoverbits unless somebody is already working on it ;-)
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Hi Junio, On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, as > > it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes > > are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant to > > be a vital part of the `stash`. > > > > I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for `git > > stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. > > This would make a good bite-sized microproject, worth marking it as > #leftoverbits unless somebody is already working on it ;-) Right. What is our currently-favored approach to this, again? Do we have a favorite wiki page to list those, or do we have a bug tracker for such mini-projects? Once I know, I will add this, with enough information to get anybody interested started. Ciao, Dscho
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Junio, > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> > The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, as >> > it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes >> > are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant to >> > be a vital part of the `stash`. >> > >> > I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for `git >> > stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. >> >> This would make a good bite-sized microproject, worth marking it as >> #leftoverbits unless somebody is already working on it ;-) > > Right. > > What is our currently-favored approach to this, again? Do we have a > favorite wiki page to list those, or do we have a bug tracker for such > mini-projects? > > Once I know, I will add this, with enough information to get anybody > interested started. I believe the "official" way, such as it is, is you just put #leftoverbits in your E-Mail, then search the list archives, e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits So e.g. I've taken to putting this in my own E-Mails where I spot something I'd like to note as a TODO that I (or someone else) could work on later: https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits+f%3Aavarab%40gmail.com
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Hi Ævar, On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> > >> > The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, as > >> > it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes > >> > are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant to > >> > be a vital part of the `stash`. > >> > > >> > I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for > >> > `git > >> > stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. > >> > >> This would make a good bite-sized microproject, worth marking it as > >> #leftoverbits unless somebody is already working on it ;-) > > > > Right. > > > > What is our currently-favored approach to this, again? Do we have a > > favorite wiki page to list those, or do we have a bug tracker for such > > mini-projects? > > > > Once I know, I will add this, with enough information to get anybody > > interested started. > > I believe the "official" way, such as it is, is you just put > #leftoverbits in your E-Mail, then search the list archives, > e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits > > So e.g. I've taken to putting this in my own E-Mails where I spot > something I'd like to note as a TODO that I (or someone else) could work > on later: > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits+f%3Aavarab%40gmail.com That is a poor way to list the current micro-projects, as it is totally non-obvious to the casual interested person which projects are still relevant, and which ones have been addressed already. In a bug tracker, you can at least add a comment stating that something has been addressed, or made a lot easier by another topic. In a mailing list archive, those mails are immutable, and you cannot update squat. Ciao, Johannes
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > I believe the "official" way, such as it is, is you just put > #leftoverbits in your E-Mail, then search the list archives, > e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits I think that technique has been around long enough to be called a recognised way, but I do not think it is "the" official way. It is one of the efforts to allow us remember what we might want to work on, and focuses on not wasting too much efforts in curating. Another effort to allow us remember is http://crbug.com/git that is run by Jonathan Nieder. Anybody can participate in curating the latter. The former is uncurated and deliberately kept informal, but will stay a usable way until clueless people catch up with the practice and mark any random garbage they come up with with the marking word. I myself try to refrain from using it when I raise the idea/issue for the first time to avoid "ah, it turns out that it is not such a great idea after thinking about it for a while"--rather I try to limit my use to my responses as a reaction to somebody else's idea/issue. That way, I can make sure that messages with the marking word from me has idea supported by at least two people, one of which is known to me to have a good taste, so mailing list search "from:me #leftoverbits" would stay meaningful.
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 30 2018, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > >> >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> >> >> > The `stash` command only incidentally requires that the author is set, >> >> > as >> >> > it calls `git commit` internally (which records the author). As stashes >> >> > are intended to be local only, that author information was never meant >> >> > to >> >> > be a vital part of the `stash`. >> >> > >> >> > I could imagine that an even better enhancement request would ask for >> >> > `git >> >> > stash` to work even if `user.name` is not configured. >> >> >> >> This would make a good bite-sized microproject, worth marking it as >> >> #leftoverbits unless somebody is already working on it ;-) >> > >> > Right. >> > >> > What is our currently-favored approach to this, again? Do we have a >> > favorite wiki page to list those, or do we have a bug tracker for such >> > mini-projects? >> > >> > Once I know, I will add this, with enough information to get anybody >> > interested started. >> >> I believe the "official" way, such as it is, is you just put >> #leftoverbits in your E-Mail, then search the list archives, >> e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits >> >> So e.g. I've taken to putting this in my own E-Mails where I spot >> something I'd like to note as a TODO that I (or someone else) could work >> on later: >> https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits+f%3Aavarab%40gmail.com > > That is a poor way to list the current micro-projects, as it is totally > non-obvious to the casual interested person which projects are still > relevant, and which ones have been addressed already. I don't think this is ideal. To be clear and in reply to both yours and Junio's E-Mail. I meant "official" in scare quotes in the least official way possible. I.e. that you need to search the mailing list archive if you want to see what these #leftoverbits are, because the full set is stored nowhere else. > In a bug tracker, you can at least add a comment stating that something > has been addressed, or made a lot easier by another topic. Yeah, a bunch of things suck about it, although I will say at least for notes I'm leaving for myself I'm using it in a way that I wouldn't bother to use a bugtracker, so in many cases it's the difference between offhandendly saying "oh b.t.w. we should fix xyz in way abc #leftoverbits" and not having a bug at all, because filing a bug / curating a tracker etc. is a lot more work. > In a mailing list archive, those mails are immutable, and you cannot > update squat. In a lot of bugtrackers you can't update existing comments either, you make a new one noting some new status. Similarly you can send a new mail with the correct In-Reply-To. That doesn't solve all the issues, but helps in many cases.
Re: Trivial enhancement: All commands which require an author should accept --author
Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >> I believe the "official" way, such as it is, is you just put >> #leftoverbits in your E-Mail, then search the list archives, >> e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=%23leftoverbits > > I think that technique has been around long enough to be called a > recognised way, but I do not think it is "the" official way. It is > one of the efforts to allow us remember what we might want to work > on, and focuses on not wasting too much efforts in curating. > Another effort to allow us remember is http://crbug.com/git that is > run by Jonathan Nieder. > > Anybody can participate in curating the latter. Yes, exactly. Ævar, if you would like to keep better track of #leftoverbits, please feel free to make use of https://crbug.com/git/new. It even has a "leftover bit" template you can use. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan
